Directing the Invisible: Citizen Involvement in Nanotechnology
Discussing the Issue
Though experts
stress and preach caution, some evidence suggests that the caution of experts
may not be sufficient to safely evaluate their products. Doctor Michael
Siegrist conducted a detailed survey, which suggested that because
nanotechnologists perceive nanotechnology as less dangerous than lay people do,
they “might not be inclined to initiate the risk assessments that are expected
by the public” (Berger, Trust Will…),
though they understand the need for caution. Because they feel more comfortable
around the technology, though they understand it and its dangers better than
the lay public, they may not actually release safe products.
This difference
of opinion in risk assessments between the public and experts serves as a key
example of the main issue to consider during nanotechnology’s rapid evolution. If
we look past the underlying ethical conundrums of some nanotechnologies, or the
practical problems of nanotechnology such as potentially toxic nanoparticle
emission, we see that what unites all the potential controversies is that of
communication. The real issue of nanotechnology is how lay citizens, scientific
experts, and the various businesses and agencies involved will interact with
one another to direct its research and application.
This brings us
back to the primary question: who should make the decisions about the growing
presence and pace of nanotechnology research, and how can they do it?
Ultimately, one can hope that this becomes an issue of who stands posed to reap
the benefits, who stands to suffer the consequences, and the gravity of these
two possibilities. However, the reality is that such decisions are largely out
of the hands of the average citizen, though the results of the research are
already becoming available for purchase by him or her. To become more involved
in the process, then, let us first look at what forces are currently directing
the progress of nanotechnology in the United States, and how.
In 2001, the
Clinton administration succeeded in creating a National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI), whose declared function is to “provide a multi-agency
framework to ensure U.S. leadership in nanotechnology that will be essential to
improved human health, economic well-being and national security” (NNI
webpage). Since then, the federal budget has allocated a steadily increasing
amount to the various agencies working under the NNI, spending over $1.3 billion
in 2006 (NNI webpage). The NNI is partly responsible for the distribution of
funding to and creation of various nanotechnology research projects and
laboratories, totaling about $2 billion dollars a year when combined with small
business interests, private investors, and local and state governments.
According to the NNI website, however, this figure is only half of the average
annual funding donations for nanotechnology research in the United
States, with the other $2 billion coming
from large industrial businesses.
So, as it stands,
nanotechnologists are likely researching in the direct interests of either big
business or the assembled agencies of the NNI. The role of the scientist has historically
been one that attempts to avoid politics, but consider the great potential that
nanotechnology has for military application, the strong emphasis the NNI places
on interdisciplinary communication, and the age-old relation between big
industry, science, and war. With so much funding and so many ties with the
great presence of industry and governmental agency, the analysis of how
nanotechnology is being researched requires an examination of the politics
behind that funding.
Back to top.
-Nanotechnology and the Government:
The
congressional act which created the NNI, the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, is full of very powerful writing.
It declares that the agencies involved shall work towards “ensuring United
States global leadership in the development
and application of nanotechnology,” (108th Congress Stat 1923 2.b.5)
and that its goals and priorities will be set by the National Science and
Technology Council (2.c.1). Though this seems to give an almost unshakeable
direction to a somewhat cloistered gathering of politicians and scientists with
limited connection to the concerns of the lay public, this bit of legislation
stresses the importance of being open to public input – in fact, it encourages
it. Section 2.b.10 declares that what is now the NNI shall, among other things,
“[provide]…for public input and outreach to be integrated into the program by
the convening of regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms
such as citizens’ panels, consensus conferences, and educational events, as
appropriate.” (108th Congress Stat. 1923).
The “as
appropriate” tagged onto the end of this line of legislation begs the question
of how the National Nanotechnology Initiative plans to determine how much
dialogue between officials and citizens is “appropriate,” and what sort of
regulations are in place to ensure that these plans are actually carried
through. Though the NNI website mentions numerous plans and research methods,
including the support of efforts to assess and analyze public understanding and
attitude of nanotechnology, or a component of research towards obtaining public
input, it actually shows very little sign of taking care of such research.
Though
breakthroughs in nanotechnology occur on a weekly basis, the NNI website itself
links only a handful of research or outreach results on its website, the most
recent being from October 2005. While the most detailed of these reports is an
impressive 280 page discussion of social, political, economic and ethical
concerns, it essentially cuts out the lay person because, even if he is
represented, it is filtered through “the views of leading experts in academia,
private sectors and government” (Mihail, 2). This is not to say that the
concerns of said experts are invalid or not worthwhile; because they are so
thoroughly educated on the subject matter their views will undoubtedly have
many insights into the research and development of nanotechnology.
Nevertheless, all of these insights are from within various branches relevant
to the technology, and the report seems ultimately to disregard the potential
validity of the public’s concern.
In fact, what
much of the NNI’s research seems to be directed towards is not so much
listening to and considering the public’s concerns, but learning just enough
about them to soothe them over with public information sessions, and then argue
amongst themselves about the rest. It seems, like many of its predecessors in
governmental agency, designed to greet the public at the threshold of the
technology, give them the facility tour, and then completely lock them out of
any meaningful contribution.
Granted, it is a
very good thing for people to be educated about nanotechnology, as many of the concerns
about it are based on a lack of knowledge, and more and more opportunities to
learn are appearing across the United States.
On April 26, 2007, the
Science Museum of Minnesota hosted a discussion on the various issues
surrounding the introduction of nanotechnology-enabled medical technologies, to
provide one very current example, and many other such discussions continue to
cycle through public spheres of discussion. If a museum discussion is too
formal, there is also the more informal option of a Café Scientifique, the
quickly catching on “drink and talk science” tactic of uniting scientist and
layperson. Though frequently sponsored by museums, these Cafés are usually very
relaxed and gain strength from the museum’s support, and one of the many ways
to become involved in bringing public discussion of nanotechnology to the ears
of the professionals.
So there are
opportunities for scientists to share their knowledge with lay citizens, and
for those citizens to share their concerns with the scientists – but how much
does this really matter? Truly it is important for a researcher to know whether
his results will be appreciated by anyone, and so he will take the concerns of
the potential users of his products, but the most important of those potential
users are those that pay for the research. Even though the NNI has worked to
educate the public, there seems to be a great want for the NNI to take heed of
the concerns of the public it has educated, and so what it funds stays fairly
consistent. Furthermore, as many of the NNI’s stated research goals include
military hardware, there is little fear that the funding will meet an
unresponsive target audience. There is one important fact that remains,
however: the NNI gets the money it uses for funding from taxes, and so public
outcry can be an important tool.
One can hope
that if the public takes an active role in addressing this issue of lock-out,
(the age-old “taxation and then spending without representation”), and calls
for the “regular and ongoing” public discussions required by the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, the NNI might become more
engaged in relating public interest to the direction of scientific funding. A
similar movement can hopefully influence the funding from local and state
governments, but this leaves two sources of funding with no direct
responsibility to the public’s opinion: private sector funding, and large
industry funding.
See the links at the bottom of the References and Links page to look at more developments and concerns.
Back to top.
-Nanotechnology and Business:
The almost
untouchable pair of large industry and private sectors makes up more than half
of the funds that power nanotechnology resource, so how can a concerned citizen
hope to do anything to alter the production and distribution of potentially
threatening technologies? Of course, it is in the interest of the business and
entrepreneur to invest in research that will produce a product that customers
want to buy, and so if it becomes widely known that people are too concerned
about a certain technology for it to be profitable, the research will stop – or
at least be temporarily tabled. Given the current model of capitalism at play
in the United States,
however, only a market majority of concerned citizens could have such an
effect, leaving the marginalized dissenters without a voice. This can be
particularly dangerous with a science as potentially widespread as nanotechnology,
where if enough people are happy with one of its products to begin with, then
the technology could catch on, dominate the market, and force other companies to
adopt it to stay competitive. As a result, the alternative options to that
technology previously available to the minority would become more and more
difficult or even impossible to obtain. We have seen similar trends in our
market from such things as mass coffee providers like Starbucks and Caribou,
whose methods are sometimes criticized but have by now an essentially
insurmountable market force.
Is this
acceptable? We come now to a matter of how decisions about the release of
various nanotechnologies ought to be regulated; what must be considered? As far
as some are concerned, there is absolutely no reason why products containing
nanomaterials should cause alarm for anyone, and so it is a moot point; meanwhile,
others argue that the potential risks of toxicity from nanoparticle emissions
are a serious danger, regardless of safety standards. If we consider how
proximity breeds a disarming familiarity, then an effective regulation of
technological distribution would have to include a risk analysis based on the
opinions of both experts and laymen given the opportunity to learn functional
details about the science. This goes along with a general concept proposed by
(source - Moodle) for risk assessment called “extended peer review,” and could
be greatly helpful in getting the universally affected U.S.
citizen involved in determining what technologies could hit the market –
unfortunately there is currently no governmental infrastructure for such
lengthy and involved evaluations.
So barring a
flood of letters to congressman that beg for an extended peer review system to
be put in place – which is not impossible, but certainly has not happened yet –
is there a way for citizens to express their concern about the funding and
distribution decisions of large industry? Yes. The very recent issue of
genetically modified organisms or GMOs being legalized for use as food products
is a prime example of how a group of strong-minded citizens, if they stay
well-informed of scientific developments, can petition various governmental
agencies to initiate a neutral period of citizen input. The effectiveness of
this input is a somewhat suspect issue, but the more people choose to be
involved with the development of nanotechnology, the more likely that their
education will validate their opinions in the eyes of the decision makers. For
now, this seems like the best way for citizens to help regulate the commercial
introduction of various nanotechnologies – keeping a finger on the pulse of its
evolution, understanding the science involved, and being ready to object about
something that might be dangerous.
See the links at the bottom of the References and Links page to look at more developments and concerns.
Back to top.
-Nanotechnology and the Military:
Let us return to
the perhaps more frightening issue of the NNI’s handling of the development of
military nanotechnology. Though the military is certainly a part of our
government, the ways in which its actions and research must be dealt with are
rather different from those of the more public government, and so here I treat
it as a different entity.
The first thing
is to consider these three questions: what sorts of technologies are on the
horizon, what might their consequences be, and most importantly, what say can
the citizen have in decisions regarding this research? Although the funding for
the NNI comes from the taxpayers and the taxpayers can theoretically use the
power of representative democracy to alter what their taxes actually pay for, this
issue becomes slightly confounded when the subject of debate is of a military
nature. Because the primary tool of a citizen in influencing the opinions of an
expert working in the government is his own knowledge of that expert’s field,
and because specific knowledge of military research is frequently highly
classified material, this tactic of validating the citizen’s opinion doesn’t
exactly work.
While we as
citizens may not yet be able to determine exactly what our military
nanotechnology research is working towards, we can be fairly certain that it is
working towards many things. The NNI website mentions a few of its past
military achievements, including the development of more powerful explosives,
cites nanotechnology as an “essential” component to improved national security,
and lists its combined funding of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at approximately $419 million in 2007.
This is more than a third of the year’s total NNI budget, all being directed
towards the development and application of new military hardware.
Now, I am not
going to say outright that this is a faulty expenditure of our capital, because
truly we do not live in a peaceful era, and if and when people that wish to
attack the United States become able to do so with their own nanotechnology,
then our research in nanotechnological weapons may be an invaluable asset in
our defense. There is also sensibility in the idea of keeping such research top
secret, so that enemies of the United States
will not have access to any of our own ideas. However, there is a great
historical precedent for what happens when scientists are asked to conduct
their research in secret: the Manhattan Project. Technical success, but
“nuclear secrets” were still spread across the globe, and a terrifyingly
awesome destructive force was unleashed.
Again, I do not
wish to make any ethical claim about the rightness of the United
States’ research or use of nuclear
technology, but rather that historical fact demonstrates how scientific
progress will always become common knowledge eventually. In today’s information
age, where knowledge can be transmitted from user to user instantaneously,
combined with the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act’s provisions for the availability of knowledge between
disciplines and agencies, these “secrets” will only be walked out faster.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is no reason not to involve the citizenry
of the United States
in the direction of its military research, especially not when history has
shown how many people can have ethical dilemmas about the results of that
research.
Of course, once
again, we return to the issue of reality. Military research is highly
classified, only hinted at in publicly viewable documents, is most certainly
being conducted in the sphere of nanotechnology, and will be representative of
the United States
and thus its citizens if and when it is put into use. Yet, so far, there seems
to be no significant way to direct this research other than through a great
protest of military research in general. Given all this, the condition of
military nanotechnology seems almost not worth worrying about; for example,
consider that there is most likely top secret military research being conducted
in various other fields of technology as well, which go largely uncared for.
Why should nanotechnology be any different?
A possible
answer lies in some of the proposed threats of nanotechnology; that, in a
military setting, the regulations on the safety of nanotechnology products
could be far more lax in hopes of seeing results, and that this in turn could
have far-reaching consequences. For example, one bit of progress that has been
released to the public is the suggestion by the naval engineer John S. Canning,
that a replacement of Isaac Asimov’s famous Laws of Robotics, (often considered
to be the model cornerstone of an artificial intelligence program), be
instituted for so-called “kill-bots,” so that they may kill humans after
receiving approval from their human master(s). (Page) While the source itself
is somewhat sensationalized, the fact of the matter is that autonomous robots
are becoming more and more apparent on the front lines of war, and this article
does suggest how lethal their uses are becoming. Combined with the somewhat
disturbing potential of nanotechnology to provide human-like capacity in
artificial intelligence, the progress of nanotechnology research in the growing
military sphere of robotic warfare holds the potential to produce thinking,
learning, killing machines – if, that is, the research and development is not
tempered by a concerned citizenry.
In all honesty,
the likelihood of such an event strikes me personally as very minor, but not
impossible. Those words, that “today’s science fiction can become tomorrow’s
reality,” seem to ring fairly true here. And for those that see no dangers in
investing more than a third of our federal nanotechnology research fund in
military development, at the very least the possibility that non-military
technologies could provide us with so much more must be considered. For
example, might not it be better to petition the government to redirect DOD
funding under the NNI towards the National Institutes of Health, or some other
agency to help Professor Dai’s research, that may someday find a cure for AIDS?
So it is
important for citizens to be involved in the direction and regulation of
military nanotechnology research: the big question here, then, is how to go
about this? As previously discussed, the access to such discussion is
essentially nonexistent in the U.S.
government’s current state. However, beyond extreme political movements to
reshape the structure of military intelligence from within our own borders –
which is not necessarily a bad idea, but perhaps out of the reach of most
citizens without training in politics and group organization – we as individual
citizens of a country can work towards a gradual change in the process of
managing military research by looking to international sources of
nanotechnology stewardship.
Though there are not exactly
international organizations dedicated to the regulation of individual
countries’ military research, there are such organizations that work to provide
a global perspective from which to evaluate the potential risks of
nanotechnology. A primary example of this type of organization is the
International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON). By being involved with
organizations like ICON, examining their peer reviews and news alerts, citizens
begin to be influenced by a more global perspective. This in turn could,
combined with a continuing effort of the citizenry to mix lay perspectives with
those of the experts, begin to impose a heightened sense of responsibility, or
at least restraint, on military research.
See the links at the bottom of the References and Links page to look at more developments and concerns.
Back to top.
|
