While advancements in nanotechnology have been developing at a fast pace, there has been a noticeable absence of the kind of activist outrage we’ve seen with other new technologies, such as GMO crops and stem cell research. The question is, why?
Professor Jennifer Kuzma of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota argues nanotechnology doesn’t have the “yuck factor” that accompanies other scientific advancements that do trigger anti-technology activism. She’s got a point – for example, many people just aren’t comfortable with the idea that their food has been genetically altered, even if it’s perfectly safe or “improves” on non-GMO food. Embryonic stem cell research carries an even more severe “yuck” factor, especially for the large percentage of the population who identify as pro-life.
Compared to those two examples, current commercial applications of nanotechnology are relatively boring. The most significant anti-nanotech protest we’ve seen in the United States involved topless women occupying an Eddie Bauer store in Chicago to rage against… stain resistant pants.
Although I’m a huge proponent and enthusiast of nanotechnology, we do have evidence that shows some applications of nanotechnology can be very dangerous. One study showed that, if inhaled, carbon nanotubes could be the “new asbestos,” leading to respiratory problems and cancer. Eric Drexler even wrote about the potential dangers of “grey goo” in his landmark book, Engines of Creation.
As nanotechnology continues to be a topic of research, chances are evidence will come to light that some applications may be hazardous to human health. Although there are few protests at the moment, I agree that it’s in the nanotechnology industry’s best interest to rigorously test the safety of their products to ensure activists don’t have a reason to stifle nanotechnology development:
(David Eaton, professor and director of the Center for Ecogenetics and Environmental Health at the University of Washington) believes that nano safety data is needed to maintain the public confidence that will be required to facilitate the widespread distribution of the materials into commerce.
“Such advances may be hindered by public fear,” he says, “because we failed to adequately demonstrate the relative safety of the materials before potential exposures become widespread.”
History, he adds, shows how easily such a turn of fortune can happen. “If applications of nanomaterials into consumer products greatly outpaces research that allows us to understand the potential human health and environmental implications of these new technologies,” he predicts, “there will be a public backlash against all forms of nanotechnology, similar to what occurred a number of years ago with genetically modified foods.”
By exercising caution and continuing research that shows the potential of nanotechnology to improve our lives, scientists and industry will have the opportunity to acclimate consumers to a revolutionary new technology before their minds are exposed to fear, uncertainty and doubt from anti-nanotech activists.
A Google search for “Gray Goo” (in quotes) currently pulls up 114,000 results.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%22gray+goo%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Right now nano is a little under the radar. It made lots of promises back in the 80s, was very prematurely over-hyped, and so the disillusioned masses think it has gone away. Most people don’t seem to realize it’s finally emerged from a 2 decade trough-of-disillusion and it roaring back onto the scene. Once it’s back on Joe-Sixpack’s radar, expect to see the “Gray Goo” fear-mongers coming out of the ooze.
Hi Chris – I remember that “grey goo” seemed like a more serious concern several years ago, but lately it seems that most thinkers have debunked it as a serious existential threat, at least for the foreseeable future.
I agree with you that once some of the more radical potential applications of nanotechnology become real – molecular manufacturing, for instance – we’ll see more of the neo-Luddite arguments against it. Right now, though, nanotech is being used quite successfully to create new materials and deliver medical treatments, and it’s just hard to get fired up and angry about that (although, obviously some people do).
I suppose all it would take, though, is one Roland Emmerich disaster flick about grey goo overtaking the Earth to have media up-in-arms about the “real life risk” of nanotechnology. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, for both science and good taste.
[...] month, I pondered why nanotechnology had largely escaped the radar of anti-technology activists. This is a sharp contrast to new technologies like stem cell research and genetically modified [...]
Right now nano is a little under the radar. It made lots of promises back in the 80s, was very prematurely over-hyped, and so the disillusioned masses think it has gone away. Most people don’t seem to realize it’s finally emerged from a 2 decade trough-of-disillusion and it roaring back onto the scene. Once it’s back on Joe-Sixpack’s radar, expect to see the “Gray Goo” fear-mongers coming out of the ooze.
+1