![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Since 2004, risk in the context of nanotechnologies has been criticized as being too abstract and an all-inclusive category. Moreover, the concept of risk is not precise enough to describe the potential issues related to the development of nanotechnologies. Instead, experts on technological development emphasize risk communication. In the field of nanotechnologies, this term was redefined in February 2005 in relation to the question of societal acceptance of nanotechnologies. Risk communication is about gaining stakeholder acceptance of policy decisions, whilst the public and stakeholders are encouraged to participate actively in the communication process through public consultations or hearings. Thus, on the one hand, the category of risk has been pragmatically nuanced to better highlight the vulnerability of the communication of nanotechnologies. On the other hand, this vulnerable communication is not the result of a deficit of information. It is based on the idea of participation, where vulnerability hinges on the social groups specialized in the design, application and diffusion of nanotechnologies within society. How is such participation possible, and what does it entail? We develop this question in the framework of a comparative survey of experts in the development of nanotechnologies in Grenoble (France) and Hamburg (Germany).
Acknowledgements
This paper has benefited from discussions with participants of the workshop on Converging Science and Technologies which took place in Vienna in May 2007. We are indebted to Alfred Nordmann. Valuable comments by an anonymous reviewer are also gratefully acknowledged.
Notes
1. See <http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/risk-based-policy-making/article-133006> (all websites accessed September 14, 2007).
2. Grenoble and Hamburg offer regional similarities regarding the development of nanotechnologies. Hamburg is the second richest region in Germany (measured in GDP per capita) as Grenoble is in France, and both regions have a comparable socio-demographic structure. In both regions the development of nanotechnologies has been a primary interest since 2000. The governments of both regions and countries have supported the development of nanotechnologies through an active industrial policy in order to achieve ongoing regional prosperity.
3. Friedmann conducted a survey at Lehigh University on risk communication reported in newspapers and specialized periodicals in the field of nanotechnologies from 2000 to 2004, indicating that “[t]he number of newspaper articles found about health and environmental risks was low for both American and British coverage. Only 71 U.S. and 50 UK health and environmental risk articles were found between 2000 and 2004, with The New York Times (13) and Washington Post (9) running the most” (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=161177).
4. It is not sufficient to reduce the question of the vulnerabilities of nanotechnologies to questions of public health and public security, and it leads, as Jean-Pierre Dupuy suggests, “almost inevitably to mistakes” (Dupuy Citation2006, p. 3).
5. Friedmann's survey also states that 80% of Americans do not know anything about nanotechnologies (ibid.).
6. This is a new wave in studies on risks supported by analyses on both risk communication and public tolerance of innovative technologies (see e.g. Frewer et al. Citation1998, Baba Citation1999). These works clearly differ from usual studies on risk perception and their rationalization.
7. For a developed definition of the polarity risk/danger, see Luhmann (Citation1991), pp. 30–31.
8. See CAN's website at <http://www.can-hamburg.de>.
9. See CCSTI-Grenoble's website: <http://www.ccsti-grenoble.org/02_institu_quinous.php>. Despite the centralist tradition dominating in France, the CCSTIs were not based on a national initiative, but instead on a local one (see the report of the French Ministry of Research: <http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/064000812/index.shtml>). Because of their plurality, an association named La Réunion (see <http://www.ccsti.fr>) proposed in 1995 to unify the CCSTIs into one unique network. This led to the Charte CCSTI (2001), supported by the Ministry of Research (see <http://www.ccsti.fr/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=28>).
10. The NanoBioTech programme developed in Münster was set up in parallel to the CeNTech project, which led to the establishment of the Centre of Nanotechnology supported by tim. This is a network of partners including the City of Münster, the chamber of commerce and industry, the University of Münster and its professional school, the Hamburger Sparkasse, and the public company Technologiepark. Münster used to serve as an example in Germany for the establishment of other similar companies such as CeNTech. CAN-Hamburg can be considered a good example. Some of its leading members were also leading members of the Technologiepark in Münster (see <http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news19950>).
11. NanoBioTech is the name of a cycle of annual international conferences which took place in Münster (see <http://www.nanobio-europe.com/programme/history-2000-prg.php?Script=1&SW=1280>). A similar cycle of conferences named NanoBiotechnologies X-France took place in France (Paris, 2000; Grenoble, 2003; Nice, 2005). Following an initiative of the technological pole of Münster at the end of 2003, the two cycles joined to form one unique cycle of international conferences named NanBio-Europe (2004). These take place in Münster once a year (see the programme of the conferences for 2007 <http://www.nanobio-europe.com/output.php?Script=1&SW=1280&CN=welcome_2007>).
12. Similarly to what was accomplished in Münster, CAN also forms bonds with partners in the economic sectors within the city of Hamburg, and actively communicates with actors supporting the life sciences in Hamburg, such as, e.g., the Hamburger Sparkasse, the Innovationsstiftung, the city's chamber of commerce and the Norgenta agency for the promotion of life sciences in north Germany. Also, some members of CAN have worked at the VDI centre, and some of them have cooperated with ZT-Consulting at VDI (see <http://www.zt-consulting.de>).
13. The website of Vivagora is <http://www.vivagora.org/>. A lot of useful information regarding the activities of the association is available, as well as several reports on the debates promoted by the association, or which it takes part in.
14. Most of the documentation produced by PMO is accessible at <http://rezal404.org/pmo/spip.php?page=plan>.
15. PMO have numerous relationships with the associative network, in the alternative and the artistic scenes within and (though to a lesser degree) outside Grenoble, such as, for example, with the Parisian association ReZal404 (<http://rezal404.org/>). Officially founded in 2003, ReZal provides PMO webspace on one of its servers. They also diffuse information through an Internet–radio programme (<http://www.radio404.org>) and a web–TV programme (<http://www.tv404.org>), as well as exhibitions and other demonstrations they organize. PMO also find relays by several other political groups that take their discourse into account, such as <http://www.rebellyon.org>, indymedia, the supporter of economic decrease, the anti/alter-mondialists or more recently the Parisian students’ group Oblomoff, who made a virulent speech against nanotechnologies at the exhibition Nanomondes at La Cité de la Science (Paris; see <http://paris.indymedia.org/article.php3?id_article=78307>).
16. The experts we met in Hamburg confirmed this for such as actors at Hansenanotec, who wonder why they are the only ones trying to move forward by planning the first German public debate at the end of 2007. To no avail, we also contacted the Greens in Hamburg, ATTAC and Antifa-Hamburg (anarchists). It seems that this observation applies to Germany, which would confirm a tendency also observed at the international level: “no NGOs have as yet come out against nanotechnology as a whole, although specific elements of the risks have been highlighted” (Roco and Litten Citation2006, p. 9). However, there is one exception: the association Wissen Allmende (<http://www.wissensallmende.de/index.php?id=35>) in Berlin, founded by the person in charge of the branch of ATTAC-Hamburg, Oliver Moldenhauer.
17. We are looking for the depictions of actors who are deeply involved in the field of nanotechnologies, and who are used to dealing with the issue of the danger of nanotechnologies. Therefore, these elements are of less interest for our purpose.
18. This emerges from our sample in the framework of the support action FragoNano, one of the modules of the European initiative Science in Society, developed within the EC framework research programme no. 7.
19. From 2005 until 2007, the non-specialized information published on risk communication rates was about 20–25% of the total amount of non-specialized information published on the danger of nanotechnologies. Nevertheless, it is interesting to observe that the non-specialized information published on risk communication increases in a comparative way to non-specialized information published on the socio-economical and socio-cultural risks related to nanotechnologies during the same period of time (from 28 to 32% of the total amount of information). As a comparison, the non-specialized information published on the toxicity of nanomaterials and on their possible dangers for human health remains the most published topic, representing about two-thirds of the total amount of information published on the danger of nanotechnologies.
20. This same type of problem was mentioned, also, when we asked the experts about the possible danger of nanotechnologies for the natural environment.
21. See the Special Issue 97 of the ecological initiative Chain Reaction launched by the Friends of the Earth in Australia, and entitled Size Does Matter (2006). This gives a good overview of the information on the relationships between GMOs and nanotechnologies, which is considered to be too fragmented and not reliable enough. Some statements can be found in this report about the relationships between nanotechnologies and nuclear research, or nanotechnologies and social surveillance.
22. See the report of the National Risk on Governance Council Survey on Nanotechnology Governance, edited by Roco and Litten (Citation2006). See also the report of the 4th European Forum on Nanotechnologies, which states: “Fears which emerge must be calmed by implementing a real discussion between the different actors. The dialogue between scientists and the general public must avoid past mistakes, as was the case for GMOs, where the absence of distinction between various techniques, contempt of information and an incomplete study of the risks, legitimately caused a massive rejection by the general public and a great mistrust with respect to the agro-business 90” (European Nanotechnology Gateway Citation2005, p. 37).
23. The ethical committee of UNESCO on nanotechnologies expressed this concern openly, and in relationship with GMOs, when its members met in Paris in July 2005: “It was also said that the scenario that was presented seems so scary that public opinion may be mobilized against nanotechnology, like with GMOs, preventing possible benefits. Is this technology intrinsically dangerous or is it only its possible use? One should avoid that some sort of paranoia prevents public benefits. Mr. Gordijn emphasized the strong influence of the gray-goo scenario in the public debate, despite its recognized obsolescence. Even if it was possible, molecular engineering in other ways would be more efficient. Some publications such as the novel Pray had a huge influence anyhow, as had already been the case with genetics” (UNESCO Citation2005, p. 4).
24. At the moment, as one of the scientists highlights, economic competition in the fields of nanotechnologies is anything but transparent: “A lot of enterprises do not want people to communicate about their presence here … just because it would be information for the competitors. I am speaking about enterprises which are not known to play an active role within the fields of micro- and nanotechnologies. In order to live happy, let us live hidden; it is not useful to tell the competition this, ah, yes, this is not so dumb … And within the same structure … you can obviously not meet the individuals, but two enterprises in competition, you can obviously not speak about a common topic, because you have to be honest, but without one knowing that the other is present in the cycle”.
25. A representative of civil society makes that point as follows: “One very well knows … who is currently producing these carbon nanotubes in the South-East, thus, they put them on the market as synthetic graphite, and this is the illustration that indeed, something is put on the market before it has been monitored … 10 tonnes in a year, 10 tonnes in a year of carbon nanotubes”.
26. A scientist says: “There is a concept of convergence which is typical in science, too; e.g. there are scientific disciplines which are continually getting closer to each other. At a nano scale, the concepts are increasingly, let's say the boundaries are increasingly blurred, and it is now possible to collaborate in a very productive scientific way”. In the same way, a representative of technological culture states: “Actually, once we are at the nano scale, we realize that we maybe can bring about a convergence of some technologies and some concepts from the life sciences, the chemical sciences, the physical sciences, informatics, robotics, etc.” A representative of civil society tells us that he got involved in the field of nanotechnologies because he was fascinated by the idea of convergence: “We were looking at the nanotechnologies because we realized that the issue of convergence should really be to deepen in its reliability, and at the same time in its ambition”.
27. A scientist tells us that this concept of convergence has to be widened to other scientific disciplines, and to society: “Indeed, there is a convergence between nano, bio, informatics, and cognition, and I would like to add the research on the social aspect which should be analysed, too, because these convergences are not detached from the transformations in which we are involved in postmodern societies, because we are experiencing today a complete transformation of our society”.
28. The American way of dealing with experts on nanotechnologies and communication to the public is to bind debate with collaboration within the law in order to integrate public discussions in the agenda by law regarding the development of nanotechnologies in the United States (see The Congress of the United State of America Citation2007, pp. 5–6; special thanks to Mr Brice Laurent, Arizona State University, who forwarded this document to us).