Small things, big decisions
Letitia Hughes helps to make some big policy decisions on the future of nanotechnology
Nanotechnology, the science of really, really small things. But what else do we know? Or care? On the evening of 28 February, the Dana Centre hosted a discussion about the policy issues surrounding nanotechnology. It questioned whether nanotechnology could be the panacea to all society's ills, or whether the concept is too rife with dangers to be of use in our society.
These important issues were scrutinised using something as apparently trivial as a card game, called DECIDE. The game is actually a clever policy-making tool that allows small groups to get to grips with the issues involved, and then decide on their own policy position. This session, on nanotechnology, is just one of a series of DECIDE games, others include stem cells, genetic testing and HIV/AIDS.
The intricate workings of the game have already been described (Felix 1343, "Right or Wrong? You Decide"). This was about a DECIDE game on Xenotransplantation, also held at the Dana centre.
The evening culminated in each team deciding their policy position, based on their discussions. The results are actually given to European policy-makers to help inform their decisions.
So how were these final decisions reached? Professor Chris Phillips, a physicist at Imperial College gave a little background information. We learnt how nanotechnology simply refers to any technology that is less than 100 nanometres (1 nanometre is one-millionth of a millimetre). In recognition of this diversity many people prefer to talk of nanotechnologies rather than nanotechnology. Phillips explained how the term nanotechnology is actually most important at the governmental and societal level, hence why we were all there to give our invaluable opinions!
The second expert was Jack Stilgoe, a researcher from Demos, a public policy think tank. Demos is interested in how citizens can get involved in things that influence us. Stilgoe explained how public engagement was considered particularly important with nanotechnology, because it was essential that the genetically modified foods debacle was not repeated (where public engagement only happened at a very late stage). The issues need to be addressed before the nanotechnology products actually hit our supermarkets.
After this short introduction we were really left to our own devices, with the discussion weaving its own course as we focussed on the things that interested us. Various coloured cards provided information about current and potential applications for nanotechnology such as combating cancer, solving our energy crisis, delivering drugs through the skin or into the cells where they are needed. The discussion then flowed into various concerns such as: Are nanoparticles toxic? Would nano surveillance technologies in shop products be effective crime prevention strategies or an unfair invasion of privacy? One person at the table thought, "nanotechnology is just a label that people use to get funding" for research.
Ethical concerns were also important to our table: Should medical intervention at the nano scale be allowed? Will nanotechnologies benefit everybody, or only a select few?
Our team was particularly verbose and so we did have to recourse to the `yellow card', which we could wave when one particular member of the group was talking too much! In fact, quite a large proportion of the conversation was devoted to the use of nanotechnology in socks, apparently we may already be putting on nanotreated antibacterial socks in the morning.
One thing that the whole table agreed upon was that "Only when you do the research can you see the implications". Consequently, someone pointed out, why are we bothering discussing these policy issues, when we cannot really predict what the inventions are going to be? But, on putting this question to Phillips, he suggested "we cannot foresee the outcomes but we need to foresee the direction" that nanotechnology research takes.
So the group still continued our mission of deciding our own policy ruling. Our final decision, a popular consensus among other tables as well, was that policy should be considered under individual issues rather than under the umbrella term of nanotechnology. After all, nanoscience stretches across a wide spectrum, touching on medicine, physics, engineering, chemistry and molecular biology, as well as materials science. We also thought that nanotechnology research should continue, but be combined with both appropriate regulations, and extensive public dialogue on directions of research and applications. Our decisions, along with the other teams present, were uploaded the following day on www.playdecide.org. Policy decisions from all the countries that have taken part can be viewed on this site.
We all left with a self-satisfied glow that we had made a contribution to the workings of society, but watch this space to see if anyone actually heeds our opinions.
