Public attitudes to nanotechnologies: what people think

From every Small Talk event that takes place, we get feedback from event organisers, speakers and participants on their aspirations and concerns about nanotechnologies. By sharing this feedback with organisers of future Small Talk events, we hope to help move the debate forward to what people may be interested in or concerned about. During the course of the project we will also collect a signficant amount of information about attitudes to nanotechnology, which we hope will prove valuable in policy making

We have also learned about public and scientists’ views on nanotechnologies from existing research, reports and surveys, and we have provided links to some of these resources below.

Latest views on nanotechnologies...

20 Medical and Healthcare Professionals, Dana Centre, 11 April 2005

o Most people said they had decided to attend the event due to an interest in the subject or a desire to become ‘better informed’.

o When asked about risks and benefits, the vast majority of people mentioned improved medicine such as targeted drug delivery and artificial implants as a benefit, but only two specifically mentioned the risks of nanotechnologies to health. More people mentioned risks to the environment.

o Many people mentioned the risks of lack of understanding about the behaviour of nanoparticles and the inability to control them. Issues of how to make sure nanotechnologies are safe and how to avoid irreversible unexpected results were raised.

o Some people mentioned the risks of regulation and ownership of nanotechnologies, questioning whose responsibility the release of nanoparticles should be. One person specifically mentioned bio-terror.

o Others said that nanotechnologies raised few new risks that were insurmountable or uncontrollable.

o Besides medicine, people mentioned computing and IT, quantum mechanics and smaller devices as benefits of nanotechnology. Financial benefits were also mentioned.

o Many people agreed that nanotechnologies would provide many benefits across a range of fields.

o When asked about the moral implications of nanotechnologies, most people said these would be the same as in existing fields such as stem cell research, GM food or drug development.

o Some people mentioned that moral implications depended upon the application of nanotechnologies or on personal viewpoint.

o Other moral implications mentioned were safety, public knowledge, regulation and access to nanotechnologies.

Comments included:

Risks: “I didn’t know we knew so little about how nanoparticles might behave – that sounds like it could be a major risk.”

Benefits: “Many! Working on the same scale as nature’s building blocks is a very good thing.”

Moral implications: “We are so concerned with “can we do it” that we never think whether we should do it.”

35 School aged students, Royal Institution, 1 February 2005

o When asked what they would say to scientists and science ministers about nanotechnologies, most students replied that they should communicate with the public. One person recommended more communication between scientists, but most people wanted the experts to inform and educate the public about nanotechnology rather than listening to public opinion.

o Many people urged scientists and science ministers to consider the control of nanotechnologies. Concerns were voiced to scientists about our lack of understanding and preparation for dealing with risks, and to science ministers for controlling the direction of research.

o Some people were concerned about the uncertainty of the future of nanotechnologies and their possible negative effects. In particular, people asked scientists to find a way of de-activating and disposing of nanobots safely.

o Other people were positive about nanotechnology development, urging scientists to conduct more research and make more advances and science ministers to provide more funding. One person specifically encouraged research into alternative energy sources and environmental regeneration.

o Another concern was that science ministers should ensure that all nations and all people have equal rights and access to using nanotechnologies and their applications.

From the group discussions the following benefits, risks and moral implications were identified:

Benefits: health and medical, energy, safety, manufacturing, military, space and communication

Risks:health, military uses, moral implications, control, power, regulation and cost

Moral Implications: medical, control, regulation, cost and communication

Comments included:

“Communication is vital between public and private bodies so that co-operating and co-funding leads to maintaining society’s benefits.”

“Nanotechnology seems highly risky regarding control. So advances need to be fully understood before they are put into practice. All eventualities need to be considered.”

“How much control is currently held over this new technology? How prepared are we to deal with this technology at its worst? Can we handle both sides of it?”

“This is like the new industrial revolution, and prospects are beyond ones imagination. Research is vital for progress.”

Adults, The Royal Institution, November 2004

Most people said that personal interest was their reason for attending, and a number said they had attended because they ‘wanted to learn’ about nanotechnologies.

When asked what they would say to scientists and science ministers about nanotechnologies, many people replied that they should keep the public informed and listen to public opinion. Some people thought that ministers should listen more to both scientists and the public.

Some people were keen to see the UK as a world leader in nanotechnologies and urged the government to increase its funding and support of research.

Others urged scientists and science ministers to consider the social and political implications of nanotechnologies research. In particular, the risk of a growing gap between first and third world countries was mentioned.

Risk was a popular topic. Some people thought there was too much emphasis on risk and regulation, but others thought that risk assessment should be considered more by scientists.

The main risks identified were environmental, military applications, unforeseen risks and the difficulty in controlling nanotechnologies.

The main benefits identified were medical and health, communications downsizing, and unknown benefits.

Some other concerns were that nanotechnologies be used for the public benefit rather than just commercial gain and the implications for public privacy and civil liberties

Comments included:

“In order to involve the public in a way that will avoid the confusion that appeared around GM technology, as well as explaining what the technology and its safeguards are, scientists must also explain why it's necessary for the future, not just today.”

“One person said that it seems as though the government is not leading the way both in developing the technologies and ensuring the safeguards. It seems as though the corporates are setting the agenda.”

“Much of the discussion focused on what a nanoparticle actually is. If it's so small and you can't see it, how do you work with it? How do you store it? What's the difference between nanoparticles and particle physics?”