Skip to main content
Log in

Nanotechnology and society

  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Past experience has shown that the successful introduction of a new technology requires careful attention to the interactions between the technology and society. These interactions are bi-directional: on the one hand, technology changes and challenges social patterns and, on the other hand, the governance structures and values of the society affect progress in developing the technology.

Nanotechnology is likely to be particularly affected by these kinds of interactions because of its great promise and the unusually early public attention it has received. Moreover, it represents a new kind of experiment in packaging a rather wide range of fundamental research activities under a single “mission-like” umbrella. Although this gives it more impetus as a field, it sets a higher bar for showing successful applications early on and because it links disparate fields, regulatory regimes reasonable for one kind of nanotechnology development may be inappropriately extended to others.

There are a number of lessons to be gleaned from experience with the introduction of other technologies, which offer guidance with respect to what pitfalls to avoid and what issues to be sensitive to as we move forward with the development of nanotechnology applications. The problems encountered by nuclear power point out the dangers of over-promising and the role the need for the technology plays in ameliorating fears of risk. The public reaction to biomedical engineering and biotechnology highlights, in addition, the cultural factors that come into play when technologies raise questions about what is “natural” and what is “foreign” and what conceptions are involved in defining “personhood”. In all cases, it has been clear that a main task for those introducing new technology is building public trust–in the safety of the technologies and the integrity of those introducing it.

The advocates of nanotechnology have already shown that they are generally aware of the need to consider the public’s reaction, and they have taken the first steps to act on that awareness. We have to build on those beginnings, not limiting our considerations simply to issues of safety. If we do so well, we have the opportunity to develop a new paradigm for technology introduction, which will serve society well in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beckjord E.S., 2003. The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study. MIT (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower)

  • Bronzino J.D. (2006) Tissue Engineering and Artificial Organs. CRC/Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel F.H., Goodman R.M. (2001) Frankenfoods and Golden Rice : Risks, Rewards, and Realities of Genetically Modified Foods. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (1992) Nuclear Power: Technical and Institutional Options for the Future. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (2001) Global Networks and Local Values: A Comparative Look at Germany and the United States. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Future R., Environments D. (2002) A Report for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston D.H. (2000) Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass L.R., 1997. The Wisdom of Repugnance. Public Broadcasting Service, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fertility/readings/cloning.html

  • Lessig L. (1999) Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC, 2006 (a). Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Office of Public Affairs, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html)

  • NRC, 2006 (b). Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island. Office of Public Affairs, Washington DC, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

  • Pellegrino E.D., 2006. Advising the President on Ethical Issues Related to Advances in Biomedical Science and Technology. The President’s Council on Bioethics, http://www.bioethics.gov

  • Robinson R. (2005) US FDA Regulation of Combination Products. Journal of Medical Device Regulation 2(4):10–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakamoto H., 2004. Nuclear Power Plant Operating Experiences in France, Japan and the United States. MS Thesis, University of Minnesota, USA

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth H. Keller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keller, K.H. Nanotechnology and society. J Nanopart Res 9, 5–10 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9193-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9193-3

Keywords

Navigation