Nanotechnology: Social issues and implications Andrew Cook Abstract - PDF document

Nanotechnology: Social issues and implications Andrew Cook Abstract An empirical study was undertaken to measure New Zealand public reactions to the implementation of various nanotechnology applications. In an area where little research has been undertaken, the study used a novel panel focus group method to enable lay consideration of an unfamiliar topic. This paper draws on transcription data from three of four planned focus groups with approximately ten subjects per group (N = 32). Over three meetings each group gained knowledge of the unfamiliar topic and considered a range of possible applications of nanotechnology. In-depth discussion was facilitated and, to avoid undue predetermination of responses, emergent themes were pursued and explored. Analysis of the transcription data identified salient attitudes, beliefs, views and values associated with the examples. Amongst key results, identification was made of values associated with nature that suggested a resilient attitude that would present difficulties for using nanotechnology in the natural environment. There was also apprehension associated with the possibility of unforeseen consequences. Benefits were mentioned particularly for medical examples though concern was expressed at the prospect of nanotechnology being used to enhance human abilities. In addition, concern over privacy extended from discussion of the acceptability of implanted sensors. While the groups had moral and ethical objections it was recognised that attitudes and ethics could change over time. Keywords: Social issues, social implications, attitudes. Introduction Nanotechnology is an important emerging area for technological development that is expected to eventually create a new generation of products and services that will make a positive contribution to the way people live their lives. Indeed, studies of public reactions to nanotechnology have reported optimism. For example, an internet based survey conducted in 2001 found most respondents were very positive (Bainbridge, 2002). Similarly, a national phone survey conducted in the U.S. (N = 1536) found that initial reactions to nanotechnology were positive and linked to a positive view of science (Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004). Social research conducted by BMRB (2004) for the Royal Society and Royal Society of Engineers Working Group employed two workshops (50 participants in total) and door to door interviews (N = 1005). These studies found that while there was interest in the prospects for new medical treatments from nanotechnology, but there also was concern over impacts that the technology could have on employment, social freedom and personal control. Also, long term unintended effects were of concern. As the BMRB (2004) results suggest, the nanotechnology may well be associated positive benefits but the introduction of novel technologies to society can be problematic. New technologies can challenge cultural norms and ethical practices, and raise public concern over foreseen and unforeseen risks. It is possible that particular applications of nanotechnology have the potential to incite controversy, given that they may be perceived to have impacts on, 1

for example, public health and the environment. This possibility means that some nanotechnology applications could suffer problems related to public acceptance. In New Zealand it is difficult to consider public acceptance or rejection of a new technology without recalling recent controversy over genetic modification (GM). There has been a good deal of concern in New Zealand over this form of biotechnology with the development of a predominantly negative attitude towards the use of GM in food production (Cook, Fairweather, Satterfield & Hunt, 2004). This trend of increased aversion has similarly been observed in the U.S which had been that linked to growing opposition in Europe and government moves to further regulate biotechnology (Bonny, 2003). In New Zealand it could have similarly been the investigations of a Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in 2000 and 2001 and the consequential increase in attention in the popular media that had contributed to increased aversion in New Zealand. Clearly GM failed to gain public acceptance and importantly, while the Royal Commission did not rely solely on public opinion, it recommended caution in the development and use of GM. This was followed by the addition of further regulatory hurdles and constraints on the technology with only a recent small decline in negative attitudes (Cook & Fairweather, 2005). It would seem that the recent controversy over GM should serve as a warning to nanotechnology. While different to GM and biotechnology, nanotechnology would nevertheless best avoid travelling the same rough road as biotechnology. Towards this end it is necessary to assist and inform the implementation of nanotechnology applications through developing an understanding of relevant public viewpoints and values. Indeed, concerted analytical studies of reactions to biotechnology have only been made after biotechnology developments had made considerable progress (e.g., Gamble et al., 2000; Cook, Kerr & Moore, 2002; Hunt, Fairweather & Coyle, 2003). Therefore, when considering the development of nanotechnology there is a need to pre-emptively gauge and understand public reactions so as to usefully inform science and industry, as well as resource policies, programmes and projects to inform the public. To address the need for social research, the research that is the basis of this paper focused on identifying the relevant views and values that ordinary New Zealanders have regarding nanotechnology. Thus the research was intended to perform the primary functions of problem identification and problem definition necessary for informing research and development and giving direction to policies and processes to recognize, take account of, and ideally include human and societal issues arising from nanotechnology. To adequately perform these tasks a qualitative study that was designed to explore possible ethical and social issues and public concerns arising from an unfamiliar technology. This paper draws upon transcribed data from three focus groups with contributions from 32 participants. For the purposes of this paper selected themes are pursued using available data from the study which when completed will contain contributions from four focus groups with 42 participants overall. Aims and objectives The overall aim of this research was to develop an understanding of relevant public reactions to nanotechnology. The research was designed with general objectives of identifying and investigating salient attitudes, beliefs, views and values arising from possible developments of nanotechnology. Further general objectives included predicting ethical and social reactions to, and implications as well as providing guidance for processes of interaction between scientists, policymakers and the public. 2