Advertisement

Contemplating the Implications of a Nanotechnology “Revolution”

  • Georgia Miller
Part of the The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 1)

Since the industrial revolution, various groups and associations have voiced concern over the potential negative effects of numerous new technologies. Such groups often claim to represent the overlooked interests of civil society, and focus on ethical and political issues such as inequality (see Foladori and Invernizzi, ch. 2). In the case of nanotechnology, the ETC Group (see ch. 10) and Greenpeace have helped focus media attention on the potential human and environmental risks of nanoparticles, and the Meridian Institute has suggested that nanotechnologies may spawn greater inequalities. In this chapter, Miller represents the position of Friends of the Earth Australia—a branch of the world’s largest federation of environmental organizations with member groups in over seventy-two countries. Friends of the Earth Australia has called for public involvement in technology decision making and for assessments of nanotechnology’s potential to address issues of exacerbating inequities alongside basic questions of safety (see Walsh and Medley, ch. 18). Miller voices concerns about potential human and environmental harms that are typically raised by those who engage in organized resistance to the otherwise unquestioned promotion of nanotechnologies, and does so by critiquing the more conventional futures (such as those presented by Kennedy, ch. 1; Kundahl, ch. 15; or Meyyappan, ch. 20). – Eds.

Keywords

Industrial Revolution Food Sovereignty Nanotechnology Research Human Enhancement Australian Government Department 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Abstract

  1. Australian Government Department of Industry, Tourism, and Resouces. 2006. Options for a National Nanotechnology Strategy. Australia: Australian Government Department of Industry, Tourism, and Resources.Google Scholar
  2. Cobb, M. and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4): 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ETC Group. 2005. Nanotech’s “Second Nature” Patents: Implications for the Global South. Ontario, Canada: ETC Group Publications, 87 and 88.Google Scholar
  4. ETUI-REHS-European Trade Union Institute for Research, Education and Health and Safety, 2007. Available at: http://hesa.etui-rehs.org/uk/newsevents/newsfiche.asp?pk=823.
  5. International Steering Committee, Nyeleni Forum for Food Sovereignty. 2007. Synthesis Report. Available at http://www.nyeleni2007.org/spip.php?article334.
  6. Lawrence S. 2005. Nanotech Grows Up. Technology Review 108(6): 31.Google Scholar
  7. Lösch, A. 2006. Anticipating the Futures of Nanotechnology: Visionary Images as Means of Communication. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18(3/4): 393–409.Google Scholar
  8. Lux Research. 2004. Nanotechnology: The Nanotech Report 2004. New York: Lux Research Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Mangena M. 2005. Opening address by the Minister of Science and Technology, Mr. Mosibudi Mangena, at the Project AuTEK progress report function, at Cape Town International Convention Centre, Cape Town. Available at http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2005/05020812451001.htm..
  10. Maynard, A.D. 2006. Nanotechnology: A Research Strategy for Assessing Risk. Washington, D.C.: Projects on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 3.Google Scholar
  11. National Science and Technology Development Agency, The APEC Center for Technology Foresight. 2002. Nanotechnology: The Technology for the 21st Century. Vol II: The Full Report. Bangkok, Thailand: National Science and Technology Development Agency.Google Scholar
  12. National Science And Technology Council, Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology. 1999. Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  13. National Science and Technology Council. 2005. Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry Supplement to the President’s FY 2006 Budget. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  14. Roco M. and W. Bainbridge, eds. 2002. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. Available at http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies.
  15. Rothstein, W.J. 2003. Social and Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology: Lessons from Biotechnology and Other High Technologies. Biotechnology Law Report 22(4): 376–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Royal Society-Science Council of Japan. 2005. Report of Workshop on Impacts of Nanotechnologies. Available at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/.
  17. Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A., and H. Kastenholz. 2007. Risks and Nanotechnology: The Public is More Concerned Than Experts and Industry. Nature 2: 67.Google Scholar
  18. Sparrow, R. (forthcoming). Talkin’ ‘bout a (Nanotechnological) Revolution. IEEE Technology and Society.Google Scholar
  19. The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. The United Kingdom: The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  20. The South Centre. 2005. The Potential Impact of Nanotechnologies on Commodity Markets: The Implications for Commodity Cependent Developing Countries. Trade-Related Agenda, Development And Equity (T.R.A.D.E.) Research Paper 4.Google Scholar
  21. Vandana, S. 2004. Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology, India. Cited in B. McKibben, “Promising the World, or Costing the Earth?” Ecologist Asian 12(1).Google Scholar
  22. Vassar, M. 2006. Corporate Cornucopia: Examining the Special Implications of Commercial MNT Development. Available at http://wise-nano.org/w/Vassar_CTF_Essay.
  23. Waldron, A., Spencer D., and C. Batt. 2006. The Current State of Public Understanding of Nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8: 569–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgia Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations