Nanotechnology: Civil Society Groups
Nanotechnology industry
The perception from many CS groups is that there is
a burgeoning nanotechnology ‘industry’,
which is making claims for the transformative powers
of nanotechnology. The extent to which there actually
exists such an industry was debated at length. For example,
if a TV with a 2nm flat screen is produced, and 99.99%
of it is made from something else, does this constitute
‘nanotechnology’? There are differing views
on how close nanotechnology is to the market place,
complicated by the fact that nanotechnology is defined
in different ways. One estimate from a working group
member was that nanomanufacturing is about 10 years
away. However, the view from civil society representatives
was that there was either an existing nanotechnology
industry or that one was swiftly emerging.
This highlighted one of the main difficulties in discussing
nanotechnology as a discrete area – it does not
have a well-accepted and fixed definition, nor is it
one particular technology but cuts across a range of
disciplines. One view which had been suggested to the
working group in their evidence-gathering was that the
area covered by nanotechnology is just chemistry (for
example colloid and polymer science, catalysis) and
in that sense is not new. However, a CS representative
felt that this view is not borne out in the investment
press and that it was reminiscent of the doublespeak
surrounding GM crops, which were presented to investors
as revolutionary and to the public as merely an extension
of conventional breeding. It was highlighted by a CS
representative that there is a great deal of rhetoric
around nanotechnology as a new industry, as evidenced
by the NanoBusiness Alliance and the US National Nanotechnology
Initiative, or at least as a convergence of interests
across lots of different industries. It was suggested
that it was this all-encompassing characteristic of
nanotechnology that raised concerns. (Concern, for example,
that a company could own a patent on carbon nanotubes
which would then be used across pharmaceutical industry,
aeronautics etc, which may create a reliance greater
than in the case of GM. However, it was noted by a member
of the working group that there are lots of area of
technology that don’t rely on patents, and that
this could be seen as a political question.) It was
acknowledged that the fact that a large investment of
money and policy time has been devoted to the nanotechnology
area raised alarm bells in the civil society groups.
The importance and difficulty of separating reality
from hype in nanotechnology was supported by all present.
A CS representative suggested that the positive potential
of nanotechnology ought to be considered too - nanotechnology
may provide some opportunity to disrupt the trend of
only rich nations being able to afford and thus control
technology. A member of the working group gave the example
here of plastic transistors which are a fraction of
the cost of conventional ones.
>Next
|
