Pressing the Nano & Society Agenda

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

From its inception under the Clinton administration, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has offered a test case of how much we have learned from recent experiences of disruptive new technologies that have dramatic implications for the social order and raise profound ethical questions. The most relevant parallels lie in the Human Genome Project, with its ELSI (ethical, legal and social issues) program that was assigned 3-5% of the federal genome spending, and the European experience with "genetically-modified" (GMO) foods. While various views have been taken of the efficacy of the genome ELSI program, it focused major attention on the social and ethical implications of controversial new technology and helped it gain acceptance across the culture. The European GMO experience is very different: in the late 1990s, Europeans largely repudiated GMO food, and even in the United Kingdom (where the Green movement is relatively small and the government of Tony Blair is enthusiastic for new technologies), consumers have generally refused to buy GMOs (which the European press calls "Frankenfoods").

Neither is, of course, an exact parallel with nano. But the GMO revolt demonstrated the power of consumers to destroy a market worth billions of dollars because they did not have confidence in the technology. And the U.S. Congress in passing the 2003 21st Nanotechnology Research and Development Act was emphatic that the NNI should have similar treatment to the genome project. It did not at that time specify a percentage of spending to go to NELSI (nano ethical, legal and social issues), and partly as a result the NNI has been slow to initiate suitable projects. Congress has been catching up, and recently stated that it assumed that 3% of appropriated funds would be applied to these purposes. It also required a report from the Office of Science and Technology Policy on progress to date on NELSI (the report is due as of this writing).

The NELSI agenda covers many questions. Perhaps the most strategic of them - noted by Congress in the 2003 Act - lies in the area of potential human "enhancement": changes in human capacities that go beyond medical and other therapeutic interventions and make us superhuman. The fact that leading participants in NNI workshops seem open to, and indeed enthusiastic about, such interventions has caused misgivings in many quarters.

It is plain that we need more research and education projects that focus on controversial aspects of nanotechnology and address questions of concern to the public. It is crucial that the hard questions are addressed and help spawn a great national debate on what many have suggested will be the key technology of the 21st century. But we also need an ethical framework within which technical research and development are conducted. In a 2003 speech devoted to science policy and cloning, President Bush declared that new technologies present an "ethical minefield." The greater our power over nature, the more opportunity we have to do good - or ill.

The Center on Nanotechnology and Society has been delighted to participate in the NABIS (Nano and Bio in Society) Conference, and we look forward to our Washington, D.C., Conference on April 28 at the National Press Club. These events are dedicated to raising the profile of the NELSI agenda and enabling key stakeholders to make their voices heard. As the NNI gears up for more sustained NELSI engagement, we look forward to playing our part in generating the national conversation on how best to develop this new technology for the human future.

Yet it is not only a national conversation. These are global questions. A week before I participated in the NABIS Conference in Chicago, I was in Brussels, Belgium, capital of the European Union, where I was invited to address the ethics advisors to the European Commission on nanotechnology and ethics. The event was webcast, and you can see my remarks here.

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.