skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Richard Jones at Soft Machines has been writing lately about new and promising developments in the British nanotechnology community. His post on Friday was particularly interesting, focusing not on the science of nanotechnology, but on the challenges we face in deciding how, when or if to apply it. It appears that the technical challenges of nanotech might be the easy part. In reference to All Talk? Nanotechnology and public engagement:
On the one hand, there was the view that Science itself provides clear answers to policy questions; for example, given the correct information the need for GM food to feed the world’s population and nuclear energy to power it would become obvious. As for policy, we have a representative democracy to ensure that the people’s views are represented; it is politicians, not opinion polls, who ought to decide these issues, and public engagement is really just a question of the print and broadcast media informing people. On the other hand, we heard that the direct action and controversy-stoking of the social movements are the only way that opposing views can properly be heard, and that irrationality is a legitimate tool in the face of the entrenched hegemony of technoscience.
Perhaps it's natural that such potentially revolutionary technologies like nanotech end up dividing people into almost cartoonishly stark camps -- natural but depressing. My own sense is that there is a general inability in the scientific community to communicate the possibilities of nanotechnology in terms that make sense to regular people. That leads to misunderstandings and frustration on both sides and makes compromise very difficult.
Jones links to an interesting post by policy maker David Bott who also attended the same meeting as Jones and proposes the only real way out of the communication impasse that cutting-edge science often finds itself in:
If you are a scientist, I think there is real value in taking the time to explain what you do, and why you do it, to those who are not scientists, but only if you listen to what they say in return.
There's a great post up on Soft Machines describing different types of "nanohysteria" --Nanohysteria comes into different varieties too. Type 1 nanohysteria is represented by greed driven “irrational exuberance”, and is based on the idea that nanotechnology will change everything very soon, as touted by investment tipsters and consultants who want to take people’s money off them. What’s wrong with this is the absence of critical thought. Type 2 nanohysteria is the opposite - fear driven irrational paranoia exemplified by the grey goo scenario of out of control self-replicating molecular assemblers or nanobots. What’s wrong with this is again, the absence of critical thought.
In any journey it's natural to imagine what the destination will be like. There's nothing wrong with speculation but problems come up when we mistake our speculation for reality.Developments in nanotechnology are starting to come thick and fast and each one can seem like the last step before utopia or world devastation. The potential of nanotechnology seems limitless -- so much so that it's easy for even the most intelligent person to get lost in fantasy.
Just about any prediction about the future of nanotechnology, from the most optimistic to the most dire, could be true -- but it's exactly when anything seems possible that it's most crucial to focus on what we know now.
