Environmental and Health Implications of Nanotechnology—Have Innovators Learned the Lessons from Past Experiences?

ABSTRACT

Nanotechnology (NT) is expected to bring about novel technological designs and materials resulting in a wide spectrum of applications. Experience gained from past innovations shows that new technologies are often accompanied by undesired side-effects. If such side-effects are neglected or underestimated, they may result in damage. In this article we examine whether innovators, the pioneers of technological advance in nanotechnology, are aware of the lessons that can be learned from adverse effects that have occurred in connection with several past innovations. Based on the results of a survey taken among innovators we discuss what consequences the innovators draw for the present innovation process and which priorities they set when dealing with environmental and health risks of nanotechnology. Results suggest that innovators may be not very sensitive to early scientific warnings regarding risks of nanotechnology. The innovators are confident that risks are assessable and manageable on a “business as usual” basis. They consider lacking public acceptance as a potential hurdle for innovation and many innovators are afraid of a backlash. Nevertheless, they seldom engage in risk communication or stakeholder dialogue. Picking up recommendations voiced by the innovators interviewed, we sketch some possible approaches as to how innovators could tackle the potential risks of nanotechnology in a proactive manner.

Key Words:

• environment
• health
• innovation
• lessons learned
• nanotechnology
• risk assessment
• risk communication
• technological risk

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Nanologue was funded by the European Union within the 6th Framework programme. (FP6-2003-NMP-TI-3-main). The Nanologue Consortium consisted of the Wuppertal Institute (Germany), Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA), Forum for the Future (UK) and triple innova (Germany). The authors thank Thomas Ruddy, Webster University, for revising this article.

Notes

¹The “right not to know” is derived from the ethical concept of individual self-determination. We refer here especially to a patient's self-determination to know or even not to know his or her genetic disease predispositions (Andorno 2004).