ABSTRACT
As mentioned, questions of scientific democracy are theoretically, as well as practically and politically, rather awkward. On the one hand, science is supposed to be ‘free’, whatever that might mean. On the other hand, democratically elected governments and parliaments actually fund scientific research and its infrastructure such as educational systems, laboratories. This means that the ‘republic of science’ is politically controlled or contaminated already, at least to a certain degree, and that one way of democratising science is to make science policy an integral part of the general political debate. Political parties should formulate their views and opinions on science, what their priorities are, and how these priorities will be reflected in budget proposals. Then we might politicise questions of total and relative expenditure; research vs. defence, health etc., and questions of what fields of research to prioritise, like solar vs. nuclear energy research etc. The focus on politicising science and technology clearly makes emerging, hence ‘unstable’ (Akrich, 1992), technologies more interesting than the already established and standardised ones, such as the emerging field of nanoscience and nanotechnologies. The positive visions and potential applications for nanotechnology are apparently without limits. This is the case for medicine and bio-nanotechnology and also for energy, ICT, materials technology, and uses for the consumer industry (Ratner & Ratner, 2003). According to these visions, nanotechnology will have a qualitative innovative influence on the production processes, energy and material use, and information and communication systems and after a while a substantial influence on the everyday life of individual consumers and households. ‘In fact, one would be quite hard pressed to find a field which nanotechnology will not influence’ (Ozin & Arsenault, 2005, p. viii). We are promised cheaper, stronger, and lighter products, which means that in contrast to the previous history of technology, nanotechnology might help us combine economic growth with a reduced consumption of resources (Ratner & Ratner 2003), perhaps most significantly energy. This apparent limitlessness of nanotechnology and science makes it hard to grasp, and it is not easy to directly compare it to other technological changes. But there is something to be gained from comparing it to one rather recent scientific revolution. The nanotechnology community can learn from the history of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Europe. The principal difficulty in delivering insights from biotechnology for
nanotechnology is not their substantive differences, but rather a certain grand commonality: both are broad, diverse families of technologies. This is not like comparing the first telephone to the first telegraph. It is more like comparing a wide range of applications powered by electricity with a wide range of earlier applications powered by hydraulic, wind, and steam power. How do we summarise so many techniques and applications bundled under one name? How do we know which specific form of biotechnology is relevant to a specific form of nanotechnology? (David & Thompson 2008). But we seem to observe a growing public scepticism to nanotechnology along two dimensions. The first is linked to a knowledge deficit concerning environmental hazards and possible health risks of the new nanotechnology materials. Second, nanotechnology also raises more fundamental questions on the relationship between man and nature; and ethical, political, and even religious dilemmas are put on the public agenda. Both dimensions are present in recent discussions over actual and potential applications of nanoscale technology. The political potential of public concerns over a new technology can be seen in the debate about genetically modified (GM) crops, a debate which some observers consider to display interesting parallels to the emerging nanotechnology debate (Burke, 2004). The European consumers’ resistance to GM crops and food has had serious consequences for plant research as well as for commercial development of new crops. Several developing countries in Africa have refused to grow GM crops, chiefly for fear of being unable to export them to the European market (The Economist, 2002). As far as nanotechnology is concerned, some NGOs are already taking action, but few have called for a global moratorium. On the contrary, most stakeholders seem eager to avoid a new GM confrontation (Throne-Holst & Stø, 2007). According to a national survey in the United States in 2006, 42% of the population had heard nothing about nanotechnology. In this segment, the number of sceptics increased dramatically after respondents were exposed to just a little information (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2006). This last point is confirmed in another survey from the United States; it does not seem that learning more about nanotechnology necessarily makes people more favorable to it. The authors of that specific study explain this in terms of peoples’
values (Kahan et al., 2007).2 In the more regular societal debate over nano matters, the Australian section of Friends of the Earth have taken the lead, voicing a very critical stand towards nanotechnology, with a first focus on nanomaterials in sunscreens and cosmetics, but later expanding it to food and agriculture and to nanotechnology in general. Other NGOs and institutes have adopted similar views. Relevant to this broader discussion is the news that the city of Berkeley, California, was the first city in the world to implement local regulations of nanomaterials, citing unknown risks (Del Vecchio, 2006), and Cambridge, Massachusetts, is thinking about following suit (Bray 2007). Consumers, citizens, and their organisations could be the most important stakeholders in the diffusion process of nanoproducts. Failure or scandals within one branch, or even for one product, might affect all branches dealing with nanotechnology. This is a possible scenario if we do not consider the ethical challenges among consumers from the beginning. On the other hand, the ‘scandal’ with Magic Nano did apparently not have such dramatic effects.3 1.2 Nanotechnology and the Public DebateStrangely enough, it is actually rather hard to pin down precisely what the public should debate, as nanoscience, nanotechnology, and nano-enabled products cover a very wide and heterogeneous field. This again has much to do with the choice of when one should introduce public deliberations; do we favour upstream, midstream, or downstream engagement (Delgado et al., 2010). One take on this might be the increasing specialisation of nano deliberations, the ‘generations’ that we identify in the concluding chapter. To decide on the desirability of different applications and to assess a diversified field of potential future benefits and risks is an unfamiliar challenge. The parallel to the GMO debate is already
mentioned, but a lot of policy makers, stakeholders, and business leaders have regarded this debate and its outcomes as dysfunctional and as a failure of the system. This is just one of many possible views, however, depending on which perspective the observer chose, even if many might agree that the GMO debate became too polarised too quickly. It seemed as if, after a certain point in time, one had to be against the technology or in favour of it, which was rather unfruitful for a debate that dealt with this kind of nuanced uncertainty. In addition, nanotechnology is expected to have a much more profound impact over a lot more sectors of science and society than GMO. It will have to be a different sort of debate. Or rather, a different set of debates. The value of popular and democratic participation in science debates could be, and are contested, as business leaders and scientists often would prefer to work and develop the field without interference from amateurs. Here this view is not an option. Public participation might indeed be difficult to incorporate, but difficulties should not be an argument against applying it. Lack of nano knowledge in the population is not the only knowledge-or consciousness-based constraint to a successful debate; however we chose to define it, as scientists’ knowledge of public desires and needs often is limited as well. But a heightened general awareness of nanotechnology and a certain level of knowledge of the phenomenon are commonly supposed to be prerequisites for initiating an interesting debate between lay citizens, and between citizens and experts. It seems as if the representation of nano in fiction, in popular science, and in the media still mainly deals with micro machines and assemblers (Crichton, 2002; Drexler, 1986; Gibson, 1996), while actual nano presence in ordinary life today probably is more about carbon nanotubes in squash rackets, sunscreens, and antibacterial sports socks. This discrepancy makes it difficult to define a set of themes around which to organise a debate. Ideally, we should probably try to debate products and applications that are between the products presently on the market and the ones in the science fiction literature, if we aim at influencing technologies and decisions. This seems to be an argument for ‘upstream’ engagement (Delgado et al., 2010). The aforementioned discrepancy between actual concern over assemblers and the quite rare concern over properties of materials in the nanoscale may actually have materialised into
two different sets of discussion, between futuristic applications and present technology. These more general and contextual concerns frame the subject matter of this chapter, being a kind of theoretical and conceptual introduction to a review of a set of deliberative processes organised in Europe and in the United States. It seems fair to mention, however, that this is not a theory-driven book. It is organised around the actual events, the background for them, the methods of conducting them, and the experiences gained results obtained from them. Our aim is to contribute to bridge the gap between scientific and political matters in relation to nanotechnology. 1.3 Deliberative Democracy and New
GovernanceIn sociology and political science, much attention in later years has been put on the concept of governance. One important argument for organising deliberative processes with citizens and with stakeholders is that the absence of a political debate and the absence of public concern make it necessary to simulate these political processes. The common voice has to be represented inside political laboratories until it materialises in real NGO activity and in real politics. To the extent that the Friends of the Earth in Australia are able to politicise the nano themes and raise public and stakeholder awareness, deliberative processes on nano will be less necessary there. The concepts of deliberation and deliberative processes have emerged from theoretical work on deliberative democracy. Deliberative, or discursive, democracy was coined by Bessete (1980) in the book Deliberative Democracy. It can also be linked to the work of Habermas (1989) and his attempts to define an ideal model for public debate. Deliberation can produce new options and new solutions, and it has the potential to document the full scope of ambiguity associated with the problem, which is relevant for our focus on the strong link between discourses of environmental problems and of nanotechnology. For the reviews presented here (in parts II and III), we chose to use the four criteria for ideal deliberations presented by Cohen (1989) in his article ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’.
