Bridging the Gulf Between Nanotechnology and Humanism

Michael Radnor, Ph.D.

We can all generally agree that: (1) we live in an evermore complex and uncertain world; and (2) change and innovation are increasing in pace. We also live in a world of multiple convergences. Clearly, as we become more involved in nanoscale science and engineering, we are almost never just dealing with nanotechnology. Rather, any program, project, or device involving the techniques of nanoscale science and engineering typically also involves applications from other scientific areas, such as biotechnology, cognitive science, or information technology.

Furthermore, as we delve into the sub-molecular levels of fields that became specialties more than a century ago, such as chemistry and physics, we realize these fields are not necessarily as different as previously thought. And, as an enabling technology, nano is starting to bridge the gaps and lead to a convergence of what we had divided.

These linkages and convergences are beginning to redefine our industries and cultures. Currently, a big issue of concern is where to find individuals capable of working with this varied spectrum of multiple convergences. This is critical to both using nanotechnology, which is an enabling technology, to its full potential and to developing convergences between the promise of the new nano-enhanced world and the legacy world in which we live.

Convergence does not only apply to the technical and the physical; social convergence is intensifying, as well. Today, when we design a product, we are conscious of the fact that we cannot only think of what makes the product work from a technical perspective. Rather, we also have to think about the context in which a product will be used, the impact it is going to have on people, how it will be viewed and understood, and even the political implications it may have.

There is an implicit assumption that, if we communicate to the community what is involved in these new fields and their resulting innovations, this will somehow lead to increased public understanding and reduced public resistance. While such communication is necessary, it may not be sufficient. The difficulty for people in accepting nanotechnology is deeply centered in emotions and beliefs, as well as the inability to visualize it. Nano arouses fear and mistrust because it is strange, has a potentially pervasive impact, and cannot be seen.

To easy this gap, we should begin by asking three specific questions. First, how can łnano˛ be visualized and understood? Second, how can such new and enormously impacting technologies be positively integrated into our lives and values? Third, how can future engineers and other scientists be helped to become comfortable with the new perspectives and the new implied relationships found in these technologies?

In doing so, it is important to recognize that this whole process of knowledge converging did not start yesterday. Rather, it has been a long, historical process, which has taken different forms. And presently, we are just experiencing the latest iteration.