The nano-communication challenge
One of the most notable phenomena associated with the development of new branches of science is a reaction against the innovation. Two examples from recent history are the reactions from some quarters against genetically modified (GM) foods and stem cell research. A key challenge for scientists and policy makers will be managing the information flow about nanotechnology.
Proper debate over the relative merits of using new technologies is essential, and key to developing policy. However, as has been demonstrated with the examples given above, the prevalence of misinformation can cause a skewing of the debate with arguments that have no basis in fact; something that does damage to parties on all sides of a genuine debate. The danger lies in the fact that once an argument has gained a certain amount of traction it is very hard to fully refute, regardless of its veracity (or lack thereof). It is human nature to follow the ‘no smoke without fire’ idiom.
For example, in the case of GM foods, a subject about which there is a great deal of genuine debate, scaremongering arguments about ‘Frankenstein foods’ have been made. Claims with little or no basis in scientific fact have been made, and were not proven to be false quickly enough. As a result there is confusion about safety and the genuine debate about when or if it is appropriate to use GM foods and crops has been drowned out.
In 2003 a group of anti-biotech organic food activists who referred to themselves as the “Independent Science Panel” released a report called The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World, which discussed crops and foods modified using modern biotechnology techniques. Their report made a series of claims regarding bioengineered crops that are not supported by the depth and breadth of extensive scientific and economic data collected in laboratory tests, field trials and commercial cultivation over the past three decades. Nevertheless, despite the lack of evidence the claims in their document have been widely reported as fact ever since.
A report from the European Group on Ethics in 2008, which advised that there was no ethical justification for the use of cloning in food production and would therefore add weight to the genuine anti-GM argument, was largely overlooked by the popular media, which was more interested in evocative scare-stories.
The claims of ‘The Independent Science Panel’
The conclusion of the ‘Science Panel’s’ report states that: “GM crops have failed
to deliver the promised benefits and are posing escalating problems on the farm.
Transgenic contamination is now widely acknowledged to be unavoidable, and hence
there can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM agriculture. Most important of all,
GM crops have not been proven safe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence has emerged
to raise serious safety concerns, that if ignored could result in irreversible damage
to health and the environment.”
This ‘conclusion’ has been shown to be false in each of its several components. In fact, crops improved through biotechnology have, in advance of their use, been subjected to more rigorous scrutiny, in depth and detail, than any others in history. Wherever farmers have been allowed access to such crops they have adopted them at unprecedented rates and inspired the highest levels of farmer loyalty because they deliver value on multiple levels, to the farmer, to the environment, and to consumers. Farmers, along with the rest of the food production industry, need to turn a profit, so if genuine and systemic agricultural problems ever do arise from biotech enhanced crops they will be abandoned.
Grey goo
Scare stories have begun to appear about nanotechnology, the most prevalent of which
is the ‘grey goo’ theory. ‘Grey goo’ is a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario
involving molecular nanotechnology in which out of control self replicating robots
consume all matter on Earth – a fear mongering scenario known as ecophagy (“eating
the environment”). There is no compelling science to back up the ‘grey goo’ theory
but it is already acknowledged as gospel by some anti-nanotech activists. Bad news
sells newspapers, and when the theory arose it was quickly accepted by the mainstream
press. Indeed, a major British newspaper ran the headline, “Alert over the march
of the 'grey goo' in nanotechnology Frankenfoods”.
It is not necessarily surprising that nanotechnology does not provoke the same automatic ‘emotional’ reaction as stem cell research or GM foods – talk of Frankenstein foods or extracting cells from aborted foetuses is evocative, much more so than carbon nano-tubes or nano-scale lead particles, which can seem clinical, and far removed from personal experience. However, reports that carbon nano-tubes could be the ‘next asbestos’ are the sort of thing that could trigger a reaction.
All this goes to explain that the actual science involved in a controversial subject can only ever be as important to a debate as people’s perspective of it, so good risk communication is vital. Although fears have been raised about nanotechnology, there has not yet been the same demonstration of activism that other controversial scientific developments have seen. Whether or not this remains the case will, to a large extent, go to prove how many lessons the scientific and policy making communities have learnt from the examples discussed above.
Activism
It would not be true to say that there has been no anti-nanotech activism at all.
For example, in 2005 environmental activists entered the Eddie Bauer store on Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, and headed to the broad storefront windows opening out on the Magnificent
Mile and proceeded to take off their clothes.
The strip show was intended to draw attention to the toxic dangers of nanotechnology. The demonstrators bore the message in slogans painted on their bodies, proclaiming “Eddie Bauer hazard” and “Expose the truth about nanotech,” among other things, in light of the clothing company’s embrace of nanotech in its recent line of stain-resistant “nanopants.”
A broad range of factors will influence the way the public views the nanotechnology risk, and the study of nanotechnology may provide a unique opportunity to test the key role that variables such as trust in government, science, and the private sector organisations have in shaping views about technology. The lessons learnt from the GM foods debate suggest methods that could be employed to avoid misinformed activism. Deliberative workshops held in 2007 highlighted how people’s attitudes to the use of cloning in food also related to their concerns about it being related, scientifically speaking, to cloning in humans. While the cloning in humans is a totally separate scientific issue, it is a subject that had to be addressed in the context of risk communication. The same approach, using the scientific method, has yet to be seen to any great extent relating to the public risk perception of nanotechnology. Some studies, such as Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology, published in Emerging Health Threats Journal in 2010, have attempted to approach the subject, but are at the level of literature reviews aimed at sociological study, rather than as a part of a risk communication strategy.
Nanotechnology may have a wider range of applications than genetic modification, but those may in turn come with a wider range of social, scientific and ethical concerns – both genuine and merely perceived – that will have to form part of a genuine debate. As long as a unified strategy is lacking, there is an increased risk that misinformed scare stories will gain more traction.