Why "NELSI" Matters So Much

  Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D., Director
  Center on Nanotechnology and Society

It was in the context of the Human Genome Project that the term "ELSI" gained currency -- an acronym for the "ethical, legal and social issues" raised by the extraordinary prospect of recombinant DNA technology and all that was expected to flow from the mapping of the human genome. Perhaps, it is fair to suggest that there were two parallel motivations in the setting aside of large sums of federal money for research of this kind (initially 3%, then 5%, of the total budget of the project). One arose from substantive concerns that this (initially) highly controversial technology could have far-reaching implications for human culture and the dignity of the individual. The other, sometimes more cynically expressed, reflected a recognition that looking at these concerns early on in the development of the technology would help clear the way for its adoption, by addressing and answering objections, working through anticipated difficulties, and generally getting everyone used to the idea that human genetics was here to stay and that we were facing up to its challenges. These approaches coalesced in the ELSI program.

While different views have been expressed about the worthwhileness of what resulted, there is no question that human genetics is much less controversial now than it was when the project started up. At the same time, we know that some of its vast implications have barely begun to surface -- partly because the science has taken longer to ramp up into clinical applications than had been expected, partly because the policy implications of genetics go deep. Thus, there has been pending federal legislation for some time on genetic discrimination. It has yet to become law. And the intellectual property issues involved (such as the patenting of human gene sequences) have hardly begun to be addressed. These are not mere details: they cut to the heart of human society and, not least, characteristically American approaches to freedom.

We have moved on. The talk of the town is now nanotechnology. Its implications, if its boosters are to be even half-believed, will leave genetics in the dust. So it is no surprise that, when Congress passed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in 2003, it had a lot to say about NELSI (Nano ELSI) with a special concern about the possibility of the development of superhuman intelligence. While the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has been on the go for more than five years, there has yet to be much activity on the NELSI front. The picture is somewhat confusing, partly because of a tendency to conflate NELSI proper with what in the trade is called EHS (environment, heath, and safety), and also with education. Of course, education can mean many things -- all the way from raising hard questions to something more akin to a promo for the technology. But it was telling that when the National Science Foundation (NSF) recently announced its first substantial NELSI award (five full years after the birth of the NNI) to Arizona State University and three other schools ($14 million over five years) the announcement was preceded by an award of $20 million for museum displays.

We need to recall the parallel motives for the original genome ELSI program. If nano is what its advocates claim, there are vast substantive issues of ethics and law, as well as wide social implications, that require critical assessment that may lead to regulatory or legislative action. But there is a parallel argument from the management of risk -- not simply environmental risk but the risk of developing a products that for whatever reason the market will not buy. The lessons of the European "genetically-modified" food (GMO) controversy are clear: unless people are convinced that products are both safe and not part of some "Brave New World" scenario, they will not buy them. The branding of GMOs in every European language as "Frankenfoods" shows how quickly a market can be destroyed.

That is why a common cause can readily be made by those who are more skeptical of technology, those who have more confidence in its capacity to solve human problems, and those who see it as a major driver of the economy in the 21st century. The more honest and energetic we are in addressing the problems now, the better the chance we all have of safe and acceptable solutions that help us be more human, not less, and build a society in which we shall want to live. NELSI is win-win.

Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D., is the Director of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society and President of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future.