As I report on the Risk Science Blog, the latest iteration of the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report has dropped “Nanoparticle Toxicity” as an emerging and significant risk. Instead, the far more generic “Threats from New Technologies” takes its place.
This is a welcome move – but I do have some reservations.
Certainly, identifying nanoparticles as a specific risk made little sense – research and thinking over the past few years has indicated not only how heterogeneous nanoparticles themselves are, but also the range of risks they are likely to present (spanning negligible to probably significant). Perhaps more importantly, the possibility of nanoparticles to cause harm is exceedingly context-dependent, making it very dificult to generalize about risks.
Replacing nanoparticles with new technologies does introduce a placeholder for a far more interesting and potential worrysome array of technologies – including specific applications of nanoscale science and technology. It also opens the way for discussions on the potential risks of technology platforms such as synthetic biology, geoengineering and robotics (just three of many).
But the sheer breadth of this placeholder surely makes it somewhat meaningless – how can you place an – albeit subjective number – on the likelihood and magnitude of “new technologies” creating problems in the future?
So while it’s good that the placeholder is there, there is a lot more work to be done in unpacking it, and having evidence-grounded discussions on the potential impacts of plausible and specific technologies.
Global Risks 2011 can be downloaded here. The website also allows the information presented in the report to be explored in greater depth.
I agree Andrew. Someone should invent the WEF Emerging Technology Group to explore what the real threats and opportunities are to ensure that the next risk map can be more specific and perhaps useful. Oh yes you’ve already done that. I hope they give you some cash to do the job properly!
If only! But one of our aims is to enable a better-informed understanding and response to the opportunities and challenges presented by new technologies – within the WEF community and beyond.
By all means be bland and generalize the risk. It has already been agreed that nano safety is far too expensive to bother with.
We are left with a rhetorical question: Who is most dangerous? determinedly ignorant and greedy Corporations or the educated fools who do their bidding?
Thanks Claudia – wondering if I should be dusting my fools hat off!
The trouble is that over-generalization serves no-one – it runs the risk of motivating people to see spectres in the shadows, while at the same time creating exceedingly large loopholes for unscrupulous or simply poorly informed organizations to slip through.
Better to be clear about the issues – then clear solutions can be defined and acted on.
I do think that any forward looking assessment needs to identify potential threats and hazards. As well as opportunities.
However, didn’t the word risk used to need a modifier like “upside risk” or “downside risk” ? Is using the word “risk” in public communications now encouraging thoughts of “spectres in the shadows”?
In many areas, including nanotechnology, the science of when something may be a threat overlaps the science behind what might be an opportunity.