ABSTRACT

Imagine how different the GM debate might have played out, and the types of GM crops we would have seen developed, if researchers had held early discussions with members of the public over what might be the best applications of gene technology. It is highly likely that we would have seen small niche crops with high value-add, such as pharmaceuticals being grown in plants in greenhouses, rather than GM broad acre crops with herbicide resistance.Even if we held those debates now, we will never really know how it might have played out in actuality, as any discussions of GM foods will be forever framed around the way that GM foods were introduced into society. For nanotechnology, however, there is still time to get it right. Towards this, it is perhaps more relevant to look at the ways in which the nanotechnology debate is different from the GM debate, rather than to look at the ways that it might be similar.The situation at present could be summarised as follows: The majority of the public have little awareness of what nano-technology is but tend to be favourable towards it [21], and media reports still tend to concentrate on the potential of nanotechno-logies [5]. But things could change rapidly, especially following a real or perceived public health scare involving nanotechnologies.