Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report is one of the most authoritative annual assessments of emerging issues surrounding risk currently produced. Now in its seventh edition, the 2012 report launched today draws on over 460 experts* from industry, government, academia and civil society to provide insight into 50 global risks across five categories, within a ten-year forward looking window.

As you would expect from such a major undertaking, the report has its limitations. There are some risk trends that maybe aren’t captured as well as they could be – chronic disease and pandemics are further down the list this year than I would have expected. And there are others that capture the headlining concerns of the moment – severe income disparity is the top-listed global risk in terms of likelihood. But taken as a whole, the trends highlighted capture key concerns and the analysis provides timely and relevant insight.

Risks are addressed in five broad categories, covering economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological risks. And cutting across these, the report considers three top-level issues under the headings Seeds of Dystopia (action or inaction that leads to fragility in states); How Safe are our Safeguards? (unintended consequences of over, under and unresponsive regulation); and The Dark Side of Connectivity (connectivity-induced vulnerability). These provide a strong framework for approaching the identified risks systemically, and teasing apart complex interactions that could lead to adverse consequences.

But how does the report relate to public health more specifically?

The short answer is that many of the issues raised have a direct or indirect impact on public health nationally and globally. Many of the issues are complex and intertwined, and are deserving of much more attention than I’ve been able to give the report so far. I did however want to pull out some of the points that struck me on a first read-through:

Unintended consequences of nanotechnology. Following a trend seen in previous Global Risks reports, the unintended consequences of nanotechnology – while still flagged up – are toward the bottom of the risk spectrum. The potential toxicity of engineered nanomaterials is still mentioned as a concern. But most of the 50 risks addressed are rated as having a higher likelihood and/or impact.

Unintended consequences of new life science technologies. These are also relatively low on the list, but higher up the scale of concern that nanotechnologies. Specifically called out are the possibilities of genetic manipulation through synthetic biology leading to unintended consequences or biological weapons.

Unforeseen consequences of regulation. These are ranked relatively low in terms of likelihood and impact. But the broad significance of unintended consequences is highlighted in the report. These are also linked in with the potential impact and likelihood of global governance failure. Specifically, the report calls for

“A shift in mentality … so that policies, regulations or institutions can offer vital protection in a more agile and cohesive way.”

The report’s authors also ask how leaders can develop anticipatory and holistic approaches to system safeguards; how businesses and governments can prevent a breakdown of trust following the emergence of new risks; and how governments, business and civil society can work together to improve resilience against unforeseen risks.

Vulnerability to pandemics. Pandemic-associated risks are in the middle of the pack when it comes to potential impact, but not as high as might be expected on the likelihood scale. In 2007 and 2008 pandemics were listed in the top five global risks in terms of impact in the Global Risks Report, but have not appeared this high since 2009. With increasing talk about flu strains like H5N1, I wonder whether the relegation of pandemics from the top-tier risks is an oversight.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These are flagged up right in the middle of the risk-pack as an emerging risk, and are one of the highest-ranked risks directly related to public health. The report provides little additional information beyond this though.

Food and water shortage crises. Thee are the highest-ranked risks in terms of impact below major systemic financial failure. And while they are both addressed as systemic risks, failure in each area has clear public health implications.

Rising rates of chronic disease. While overshadowed by higher profile risks, this remains an area of significant anticipated adverse impact and likelihood in the report.

Dystopic trends. The chapter addressing potential drivers of a dystopic future does not directly address public health issues. But trends that have an indirect impact on health thread through it. The impact of the current global financial crisis on jobs, working hours and benefits is highlighted, and it is noted that young people have been especially hard hit recently by a lack of career opportunities. The challenges of an aging population are also flagged. Both areas impact indirectly (and sometimes not so indirectly) on health and well-being. One of the questions for stakeholders posed here is “What measures should be taken today to deal with the changing socio-economic dynamics of an ageing population and a bulging young population?” One could equally well ask what measures should be taken to ensure the health of these two populations.

Regulatory risks. In the case addressing asking “How Safe are our Safeguards?” the report’s authors conclude that:

“far-reaching weaknesses in regulations [suggest] that we may be falling behind in our capacity to protect the systems that underpin growth and prosperity”

This report considers regulation extremely broadly, and spans everything from financial regulation to safety regulation. Yet it also stresses the need for integrated approaches to systemic challenges. The highlighted questions to stakeholders at the end of this section are particularly pertinent to health risk-related regulation and governance:

• How can leaders break the pattern of crisis followed by reactionary regulation and develop anticipatory and holistic approaches to system safeguards?
• How can appropriate regulations be developed so that firms will undertake effective safeguards?
• How can businesses and governments prevent a rapid breakdown of trust following the emergence of a new widespread risk?
• How can businesses, government and civil society work together to improve resilience against unforeseen risks?

Emerging technologies and emerging risks: In examining information on technologies and risks, the report concludes

“globally, the latest technologies are increasingly accessible to local industries, but indicators relating to confidence in the institutions responsible for developing safeguards, including those that manage the risks of emerging technologies, have not shown proportional increases.”

Special report on the 2011 Japan earthquake. The March 11 earthquake that hit Japan last year and the following tsunami resulted in widespread social, economic and health impacts. In a special report, the 2011 Global Risk Report takes a holistic look at factors, events and impacts. This is a case review that is well worth reading from a systemic risk perspective.

Risk centers of gravity. The report concludes with a fascinating analysis of risk “Centers of Gravity” within the five sectors it focuses on – these are described as the risks perceived to be of greatest systemic importance, or the most influential and consequential in relation to others, within each sector. The risk centers of gravity that emerged in each sector were:

• Economic: Chronic fiscal imbalances
• Environmental: Rising greenhouse gas emissions
• Geopolitical: Global governance failure
• Societal: Unsustainable population growth
• Technological: Critical systems failure

The bottom line? The report concludes that

Decision-makers need to improve understanding of incentives that will improve collaboration in response to global risks;

Trust, or lack of trust, is perceived to be a crucial factor in how risks may manifest themselves. In particular, this refers to confidence, or lack thereof, in leaders, in systems which ensure public safety and in the tools of communication that are revolutionizing how we share and digest information; and

Communication and information sharing on risks must be improved by introducing greater transparency about uncertainty and conveying it to the public in a meaningful way.

The Global Risks 2012 Seventh Edition is available at http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2012/

*I was marginally involved in the report as a member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies

The European Commission had just adopted a “cross-cutting designation of nanomaterials to be used for all regulatory purposes” (link). The definition builds on a draft definition released last year, but includes a number of substantial changes to this.

Here’s the full text of the definition:

1. Member States, the Union agencies and economic operators are invited to use the following definition of the term “nanomaterial” in the adoption and implementation of legislation and policy and research programmes concerning products of nanotechnologies.

2. “Nanomaterial” means a natural, incidental or manufactured material containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and where, for 50 % or more of the particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1 nm – 100 nm.

In specific cases and where warranted by concerns for the environment, health, safety or competitiveness the number size distribution threshold of 50 % may be replaced by a threshold between 1 and 50 %.

3. By derogation from point 2, fullerenes, graphene flakes and single wall carbon nanotubes with one or more external dimensions below 1 nm should be considered as nanomaterials.

4. For the purposes of point (2), “particle”, “agglomerate” and “aggregate” are defined as follows:

(a) “Particle” means a minute piece of matter with defined physical boundaries;

(b) “Agglomerate” means a collection of weakly bound particles or aggregates where the resulting external surface area is similar to the sum of the surface areas of the individual components;

(c) “Aggregate” means a particle comprising of strongly bound or fused particles.

5. Where technically feasible and requested in specific legislation, compliance with the definition in point (2) may be determined on the basis of the specific surface area by volume. A material should be considered as falling under the definition in point (2) where the specific surface area by volume of the material is greater than 60 m2 / cm3. However, a material which, based on its number size distribution, is a nanomaterial should be considered as complying with the definition in point (2) even if the material has a specific surface area lower than 60 m2/cm3.

6. By December 2014, the definition set out in points (1) to (5) will be reviewed in the light of experience and of scientific and technological developments. The review should particularly focus on whether the number size distribution threshold of 50 % should be increased or decreased.

7. This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States, Union agencies and economic operators.

Particular points of interest here include:

1.  The inclusion of incidental and natural materials in the definition.  The inference is that any product containing or associated with nanomaterials from any of these sources will potentially be regulated under this definition.  Strict enforcement of this definition would encompass many polymeric materials and most heterogeneous materials currently in use.  And the lack of distinction between “hard” and “soft” nanoparticles means that the definition applies to any substance containing small micelles or liposomes – someone needs to check the micelle size distribution in homogenized milk.

2.  The focus on unbound nanoparticles and their agglomerates and aggregates.  This makes sense in terms of targeting materials with the greatest exposure potential.  But it may be hard to apply to complex nanostructured materials which nevertheless present unusual health and environmental risks – such as materials with biologically active structures that are not based on unbound nanoparticles (patterned surfaces, porous materials and nano-engineered micrometer-sized structures come to mind).

3.  The threshold of 50% of a material’s number distribution comprising of particles with one or more external dimension between 1 nm – 100 nm.  This is a laudable attempt to handle materials comprised of particles of different sizes.  But it is unclear where the scientific basis for the 50% threshold lies, how this applies to aggregates and agglomerates, and how diameter is defined (there is no absolute measure of particle diameter – it depends on how it is defined and measured).

4.  The “grandfathering” in of materials such as fullerenes, graphene flakes and carbon nanotubes with one or more dimensions below 1 nm.  This makes little sense – carbon 60 fullerenes are around 1 nm in diameter, and single walled carbon nanotubes typically have a lower diameter just above 1 nm.  Unless this is a typo, and should have read “100 nm”.  Surely not.

This seems very much like a definition of convenience – and one that I worry will detract from developing evidence-based regulation (see my previous comments on this).  Of course, the critical question is, how will the definition be used.  According to the EC,

Nanomaterials are not intrinsically hazardous per se but there may be a need to take into account specific considerations in their risk assessment. Therefore one purpose of the definition is to provide clear and unambiguous criteria to identify materials for which such considerations apply. It is only the results of the risk assessment that will determine whether the nanomaterial is hazardous and whether or not further action is justified.

In other words, there is no clear evidence of risk here, but provisions are being made to regulate a notional class of materials, just in case evidence should indeed emerge.

The desire to identify materials that require further action makes sense.  But I do worry that this definition is a significant move toward requiring industry action and providing consumer information in a way that creates concern and raises economic barriers, without protecting health (and possibly taking the focus off materials that could present unusual risks) – in the “do no harm” and “do good” stakes, it seems somewhat lacking.

This coming Thursday (Oct 20 2011), the US National Nanotechnology Initiative is releasing the latest version of the Initiative’s federal nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research strategy.  The strategy will be available for download from 10:00 AM Eastern time, with a webinar on the release being held between 12:00 PM – 12:45 PM Eastern (registration required).  Further details can be found here.

A draft of the research strategy was published in December 2010 for public comment – with the aim of using these comments where appropriate to strengthen the final strategy.

In anticipation of the final version coming out on Thursday, I’ve been revisiting the public comments received.  They are still accessible on the NNI Strategy Portal, although you will need to register to read them (my comments are available separately here).  I’m particularly interested in how the NNI has addressed them in the final strategy.

While going through this exercise, I thought it worth listing the key recommendations made within these public comments.  These are extracted from comments posted on the NNI Strategy Portal, and i many cases just represent the key recommendations made in the comments:

Richard Harenburg

The 2011 NNI EHS Research Strategy needs to provide more focus on building a collaborative informatics infrastructure. Improved speed in disseminating risk and safety information is particularly critical. Collaboration with foreign nanotechnology research organizations should be developed in this area. Priority should also be given to the signature nanotechnology initiatives such as third generation solar energy. Collaborative informatics infrastructure examples can come from small businesses that use agility and innovation to succeed and grow. Examples can also come from some foreign countries that have demonstrated agility, innovation and growth.

Jeffrey Ellis

The strategy I recommend is for each product containing a nanomaterial and its uses to be first screened by the manufacturers for potential safety problems once it leaves the production facility. The manufacturers thereof should as a matter of course provide such data. If use requires special safety equipment (gloves, masks, etc) such instruction must be provided with the product.

Bill Kojola

An integrated and linked research effort to assess, via epidemiological studies, the impact of exposure to engineered nanomaterials on human health and any necessary resultant risk assessment/management responses seems to be missing from the strategy.

Andrew Maynard

…what would it take to craft a federal strategy that enabled agencies to work together more effectively in ensuring the safe use of nanomaterials?  I’m not sure that this is entirely possible – an internal strategy will always be constrained by the system in ways that an externally-crafted strategy isn’t.  But I do think that there are three areas in particular that could be built on here:

1. Principles. The idea of establishing principles to which agencies sign up to is a powerful one, and could be extended further.  For instance, they could include a commitment to working closely and cooperatively with other agencies, to working toward a common set of aims, and to critically reviewing progress towards these aims on a regular basis.
2. Accountability. The implementation and coordination framework set out in chapter 8 of the draft strategy contains a number of items that, with a bit of work, some group within the federal government could be held accountable to.  Formally, the NNCO would seem to be the most appropriate organization to be held responsible for progress here.  With accountability for actions that support the implementation and coordination of the strategy, a basis could be built for an actionable strategy, rather than wishful thinking.
3. Innovation. So often in documents like this, there is a sense of defeatism – “this is the system, and there’s nothing we can do to change it”.  Yet there are always innovative ways to circumvent institutional barriers in order to achieve specific ends.  I would strongly encourage the NEHI to start from the question “where to we want to go, and how are we going to get there”, rather than “what are we allowed to do”, and from this starting point explore innovative ways of making substantive and measurable progress towards the stated mission of the strategy.  Just one possibility here is to use the model of the Signature Initiatives being developed elsewhere within the NNI – which overcome institutional barriers to encourage agencies to focus on a common challenge.  Something similar to a Signature Initiative focused on predictive modeling, or personal exposure measurement, or nanomaterial characterization, could enable highly coordinated and integrated cross-agency programs that accelerate progress toward specific goals.  But this is just one possibility – there are surely many more ways of getting round the system!

John DiLoreto, The Nanotechnology Coalition

A core mission of the NNI is to foster “technological advancements that benefit society” (Draft NNI 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Strategy, page 1). The NNI strategy provides valuable help in identifying key research areas and, in some cases, providing the necessary funding to conduct the research itself. The Coalition believes that to fulfill its mission in this regard, the NNI could and should direct its considerable influence and resources to educating regulatory and other officials in positions of influence about nanotechnology so they can better fulfill their responsibilities to protect the safety of consumers. The EHS research strategy should also examine ways that science-based safety information can be shared with regulatory officials and others in leadership positions and provide scientific resources to assist these officials in understanding what a ‘nanomaterial’ is and help create a better understanding of properties that may impact safety.

David Berube

Section 6, p. 56, line 23/25/26/30 – 23 conflates translation with risk communication (they are different). 25 “approaches” is unclear and should reference levels of acceptable caution. 26 high uncertainty may demand whole new algorithms – your assumption whether risk communication and risk management can be integrated is incorrect. 30 is a good point to discuss the conflation of translation which occurs between parties within similar ranges of understanding and public perception (NGOs) as well as perception of public perception (legislators). Each of these subset publics have different needs and interests and standardization of terminology is hardly sufficient to the task at hand.

p. 57 line 4 – see above and consider we might need to develop algorithms appropriate to different levels of certainty. The assumption the answer to uncertainty is more certainty is not necessarily valid for all publics. The simplified version in the document seems more attuned to strategic communication involving response strategies for different risks and certainty values involving variables like plausibility, phenomenon specificity, exigence, salience, etc.

p. 63 lines 34/37 34 (see above). 37 one model does not fit all. 38 link to trust is very complex and complicated by new/digital media sources as well as new credibility (social media) and reliability.

p. 58 lines 1/5/11/27 (see above) and this demands information sharing and transparency as well as answering how data is defined, who decides what is relevant data, how it is generated, how data is compiled and concatenated. how data is vetted and debunked, and how data is revised. 5 two ways is overly simplistic, try interactional. 11 this is a model issue and we do not have a model for high uncertainty. 27 assumes risk communication is a function of data, esp. scientific data and for many publics that is not true.

p. 76 – Explanation SP objective 4.2 re: needs of the stakeholders – it might be prudent to ask them what their needs are.

Samantha Dozier, PETA

A complete, step-wise method for rigorous characterization is imperative so that measurement is not questioned and studies are not repeated. A clear requirement for nanomaterial characterization will help eliminate redundancy and imprecise data-gathering and will aid in reducing animal use for the field.

For human health effects assessment, the NNI should promote the development of a tiered, weight-of-evidence approach that is based on the most relevant methods available and encourages the NNI to support the incorporation of appropriate in vitro human-relevant cell and tissue assays for all endpoints, instead of relying on inadequately modified, non-validated animal assays. This tiered approach should start with an initial characterization of the nanomaterial, followed by in vitro basal cell and portal-of-entry toxicity assessments according to human exposure potential and a full characterization of the toxicokinetic potential.

Martin Philbert

…it is imperative that the NNI focuses on developing and implementing a plan of action that supports coordinated and responsive progress towards addressing nanomaterial safety, despite mounting barriers to achieving this. Such an approach will need to focus less on the details of what research needs to be done – there is already a plethora of information available on this – and more on cross-agency mechanisms that will support relevant and timely research.

Chapter 8 of the draft strategy begins to address this need. I would strongly encourage the NEHI working group to build on this promising start, and develop a cross-agency plan of action that enables the necessary research to progress, despite political, social, institutional and other pressures that will inevitably obstruct it.

Maria Victoria Peeler

After much discussion and reviewing comments on this web site, as well as reviewing NNI’s proposals again, I believe it’s in order to point out that while the document makes it clear that the funding is comparatively large, but limited, the critical prioritization of current US needs to achieve sustainable use of nanotechnology is missing.

The listing of the proposed projects by each requestor does not answer the question as to which projects are 1) absolutilely necessary to survive, 2) of major importance for competitive purposes (list of competitive priorities should also be defined. For example, is economic viability a higher priority than population viability..of key species or top of the chain species?) and 3) of major importance to maintain stable diversity of all Earth meeds, to avoid global to regional catastrophy. Beyond that, each project ought to require documentation that ensures the end result will not be deletirious. We do not need to foul our own nest anymore than we have already.

Robert Wiacek

Responsible and cautious science-base risk analysis and risk management by the EHS community needs to be a priority in order to curtail any unsubstantiated fears of nanomaterials that might arise by the public and ultimately restrict the development of nano-based technology.

In the listing of the goals, Line 8 (Protects public health and the environment) should remain first, Line 10 (Fosters technological advancements that benefits society) should be second, and the last goal listed should be Line 9 (Employs science-based risk analysis and risk management). This would be more consistent with the overall fourfold goals of the NNI (Introduction, Page 1).

Ronald Turco

Overall, the effort is comprehensive looking at the history of the program. However, I keyed in on page 43 line 10, “Releases of engineered nanomaterials ….” as I feel the forward thinking part of the effort ignores “nanocomposites” (the word occurs one time in the document.)… I think the report needs to move forward a bit and start to think more seriously and address the real materials. Use of the term nanomaterials is too vague as it leaves it open as to what is actually being studied (pure forms or product materials). I think raw nanosilver gets a little too much attention – again in what form will it actually be entering the environment (page 54)? We need to be thinking about how the real materials are or will be transformed. The photochemistry work of Jafvert (Hou and Jafvert, 2009; Hou et al., 2010), the fungal work of Filley (Schreiner et al., 2009) and others are a great example of how readily these materials can actually be acted upon in the environment.

Karoly Meszlenyi, The Methodist Hospital Research Institute (TMHRI)

Chapter 2 Instrumentation, Metrology, and Analytical Methods
The monitoring of nano-materials in the environment is critically important for the protection of the safety of laboratory workers at all levels. Because of this, TMHRI suggests that additional research efforts be directed into and reliable methods for the rapid detection, identification and measurement of nano-materials in laboratory and other environments.

Chapter 3 – Nanomaterials and Human Health
Research should also be directed toward an evaluation of the relative toxicity of each type of nano-material, as well as the methods and/or routes by which each nano-material is most likely to be taken into the body. lt is particularly important to proceed with research into the most effective equipment and methods for protection of workers from exposure to nano-materials. This research should include proper techniques for the handling and disposal of equipment once it has been used.

Chapter 6 – Risk Management Methods
In addition to the activities we suggest with regard to the development of the proper equipment and methods for the handling of nano-materials, research should be conducted into the development of equipment and methods for the prevention of nano-materials spills, as well as the most effective equipment and methods for the safe, rapid and effective cleanup and remediation of any such incidents.

Gaythia Weis

I recommend that some input from industrial techniques for matrix management and virtual team building would be highly useful approaches to dealing with the inter-agency and multiple stakeholder issues… I think this document:
http://www.particlea…f/1743-8977-7-40.pdf is a great outline of how to establish protocols for working with new and unfamiliar materials, and implementation of the precautionary principle. I especially like the design tree flow chart and the figures. I believe that something very specific based on the style of this report should appear early on in the US National Nanotechnology Initiative Environmental, Health and Safety strategy document. I would place this directly after the material now in Chapter 8. Because if you want to convey concepts about health and safety you have to be clear about it. And this Particle Fiber and Technology document knows how to do that. I don’t think you can have a Environmental health and safety strategy unless you really get down to the nuts and bolts of health and safety.

The American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel

The Panel supports the approach of integrating the risk assessment paradigm within product life cycle stages and the NNI’s overall adaptive management approach to EHS research. While we support the vision and mission in principle, we believe that the vision statement does not adequately acknowledge the potential of nanotechnology to enhance environmental quality. The panel also hopes that, contrary to the text box following the mission statement, the definition of “engineered nanomaterial” used in the EHS strategy would provide some degree of guidance (and consistency) to federal agencies developing their own definitions.

The Panel believes that risk communication deserves increased emphasis. We do not believe that it is sufficient to simply “integrate and standardize risk communication within the risk management framework” (p. 63). As nanotechnology EHS research increases, the question of what study results mean in terms of potential health or environmental risk must be communicated effectively. The draft frequently mentions increasing the availability of EHS information, but the public needs more than the numbers from a risk assessment to interpret studies and understand what risk management measures, if needed, are in place. We recommend that risk communication be more of a priority with a focus on addressing scientific uncertainty, public perceptions, and ELSI.

The draft strategy does not prioritize the need for consistent terminology in EHS research and practice. Standardized terminology would reduce confusion (e.g., routine use of primary particle size to describe materials composed mostly or entirely of aggregates and agglomerates). The lack of common terminology can lead to erroneous conclusions about the sources of potential EHS impacts and how to perform appropriate surveillance and exposure monitoring. As noted in the draft, lack of common terminology can also undermine risk communication.

The Panel notes that the term “comparative risk assessment” is used frequently, but it is not defined. Is it a comparison of different nanomaterial risk assessments or of how different properties influence risk assessment? The Panel requests clarity on the meaning of this term and notes that assessments that compare nano and non-nano forms of materials may be useful for assessing whether nano forms of materials possess increased risk relative to non-nano forms.

Although education is a major component of the overall NNI strategic plan, there are no linkages to education in the draft EHS strategy.

Günter Oberdörster

Page 31, lines 7-13: Although the need for developing appropriate, reliable, etc. in vitro and in vivo assays need to be identified, this need could include and emphasize the validation of any in vitro system through in vivo studies. In addition, the choice of realistic, relevant doses/concentrations should be informed by data from exposure assessment which should be stressed.

Page 31, line 35: The nose is listed here as a non-traditional route of entry, it certainly is not, nasal and oral inhalation are both very traditional portals of entry.

Page 32, lines 3 and 4: When designing dose response and time course studies, the need for inclusion of realistic doses should be mentioned.

Page 32, lines 9 and 10: Likewise, with respect to alternative in vitro testing methods for rapid screening, it should be emphasized again that validation is necessary since mechanisms are dose-dependent and mechanisms associated with extraordinarily high doses in vitro are likely not to operate in vivo. So the predictability of in vitro assays for in vivo responses clearly needs to be confirmed.

Page 35, lines 3-14, Overview: In this well-written overview section, I would like to see more emphasis on a validation of in vitro assays by in vivo studies; just pointing to the correlation (correlation which way?) of in vitro results with in vivo outcomes is not strong enough in my view. It should be pointed out in this section that the term in vivo also requires some scrutiny with respect to methodologies: for example, inhalation as the preferred method is clearly the gold standard as far as the respiratory tract as portal of entry is concerned, yet bolus type delivery (instillation, aspiration) are continuously used, calling for a need to compare different in vivo types of exposure to assess their usefulness. (Differences in dose-rate as important determinant of acute effects).

Page 37, lines 15-29, Overview: This section again is a good overview, however, it could be more specific with respect to what are the goals of biokinetics, which are described here as developing models that predict ENM biological exposure and fate. Important in addition is to identify from such biokinetic studies potential target tissues/organs. Specifically, sensitive tissues could be mentioned, such as bone marrow, CNS, cardio-vascular system, placenta, the latter pointing to the potential of reproductive effects.

Page 38, lines 38-45: This overview of ENM uptake and portal of entry tissues addresses also the issue of inhalation vs. intratracheal instillation as well as use of high exposure doses. However, it appears that for the instillation methodology (aspiration should be mentioned also, both together to be described as acute bolus type deliveries) by-passing of the upper respiratory tract is identified as the only limiting factor with respect to risk assessment. However, a major problem not mentioned here is the difference in dose rate between inhalation and bolus type delivery, in addition to differences in distributions of deposited doses in the lower respiratory tract.

Page 39, lines 34-46, Overview: The need for fundamental understanding of the mode of action is addressed here, and it would be helpful to remind the reader that mechanisms also are dose-dependent, and that therefore the identification of molecular mechanisms mediating biological responses also require to make certain that they are operating in vivo, particularly in case they are derived from high-dose in vitro studies.

Page 56, lines 9 and 10: A minor point, I suggest to reverse these two lines, to place Hazard Identification first, followed by Risk Characterization, which is dose-response assessment.

Page 68: This last section on Informatics and Modeling identifies some problems with regard to setting up a better collaborative infrastructure considering, among others, the policies and practices of different agencies (line 5), funding mechanisms and funding evaluation schemes, etc.; but there doesn’t seem to be a solution offered to solve these problems although there is some attempt in the last section, The Path Forward (see below).

The Informatics section is very useful, in particular also since it emphasizes the importance of validating predictive capabilities of in vitro and in vivo assays (lines 17 and 25) and to incorporate necessary additional information. It would be helpful to add a short paragraph about the time line of informatics, obviously these are long-term goals, can you provide any milestones for the goals?

Pages 70/71, Path Forward: With respect to targeting and accelerating HS research, six bullet-points are listed, however, an overarching issue that could be introduced here (it comes several pages later) is that there ought to be a coordinating oversight body, otherwise, it might be just a continuation of how it is now.

Page 71, line 22: Dosemetrics such as surface area and solubility are listed as something new which certainly is not the case. Otherwise, this listing of prioritized research is well developed and makes good sense.

“Page 77, lines 2-7, Implementation and Coordination: The essentiality of continuous coordination among agencies through the NEHI working group and addition of an NNCO coordinator is expressed. This sounds pretty good, how well will it work though? This document lists many projects for each of the research needs, but there was not much evidence of inter-project collaboration/discussions.

Page 78, first bullet-point, lists the new NNCO coordinator but it is not clear what, if any, directive power this coordinator will have? Just assisting agencies may not be enough.

Page 78, (Lines 4-9) In addition, the NEHI working group will continue to facilitate coordination and increased collaboration among the agencies, so it is not clear really how these two coordinating groups work together and how much of a directed coordinated agenda for accelerated EHS research is now in place or how is that different from the past? The NEHI working group is continuing its coordinating efforts nationally and internationally, so what is the role of the new NNCO coordinator?

Page 79 discusses very nicely the dissemination of knowledge and comes up with a Conclusion Paragraph. However, in both of these the NNCO coordinator is not mentioned, so how important really is this coordinator? Role of the NNCO needs to be better clarified.

Page 91, Appendix C. Definitions — Nanoparticle or nanoscale particle: Text reads: “ … a nano-object with all three external dimensions …” — should be “…at least one external dimension….”.

Skip Rung

1. The document is not by any means a roadmap for “support(ing) responsible development of nanotechnology” (NNI goal #4), because it is almost completely focused on risk rather than on proactive activities (though these are briefly mentioned in a few places), and because there are no cost or timeline estimates for achievement of objectives that would enable such development.

2. Though the term “comparative risk” is used in places, there is almost no sense of comparison of the risks of using new nanomaterials with (a) conventional materials or (b) incumbent nanomaterials that were certified prior to recent precautionary blocking and slowdowns. This concern is somewhat personal : an ONAMI gap fund portfolio company, Dune Sciences, which has a better (performance and safety) nanosilver technology, has been severely harmed precisely because of an inability to make such beneficial tradeoffs. Unlike the world of “substances” under TSCA, at least some categories of new nanomaterials developed in the US are at this time practically blocked from commercialization here. This is causing loss of opportunity to Asia.

Two suggestions: a) Set appropriate comparative risk context in the introduction and all relevant sections. b) Fund comparative hazard/exposure/risk studies in a few key/prioritized cases

3. It is unlikely that more than a tiny fraction of the US public knows that the level of scrutiny (both because of genuine scientific interest and because of technophobic NGO influence) being applied to nanomaterials is unprecedented, and has not been applied to molecular (other than certain categories) or micron-scale materials. To cite two of many possible examples, molecular species in plastics used in many products (household items, electronics, automobiles) are known to outgas, and micron-scale particles (in the range most favored for deep lung inhalation) are emitted from paper products and office copiers.

4. It seems imperative to me, unless the NNI wants to be an enabler of even more loss of manufacturing and high-value product development activity in the US, to incorporate – or at least prominently mention in its introduction – a broader comparative sense of risks vs. benefits in the world of materials/substances, and to include/highlight more activity on proactive development of nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing processes, including not just “safe by design” efforts but also safe and low-impact fabrication and purification methods.

5. The occupational exposure research methods should use NIOSH-approved workplace and PPE protocols as the baseline, otherwise needless concern may be raised. If resources permit, comparing this baseline with less precautionary practices would provide useful sensitivity information.

6. There might be greater mention of biological assay methods that combine the best features of in vitro (e.g. small material requirement, high throughput) and in vivo (e.g. vertebrate development impact) studies. One is the use of embryonic zebrafish.

Thomas Peters

Major comments

1) I disagree with the order of priorities in the Human Exposure Assessment area. The authors seem confused among what can be done and what needs to be done. Ultimately, I think that most would agree that the number one need is to “characterize exposures among [people, although the word ‘workers’ was used in 2008]”. The new need #1 is to “understand processes and factors that determine exposures to NM”. I disagree with this reprioritization and suspects that this change reflects the desire to have something more easily tactically achieved in the number one slot. I do not agree that the old needs map to the new needs as indicated by the arrows in Figure 3-1.

I also suspect that the authors have overstated the progress that has been made as stated on page 22, line 10. We still know very little about workplace exposures and there should still be a focus in this area.”\

2) There seems to be an opportunity for more clear linkage among the different chapters. Additionally, the different chapters do not seem parallel as they are presented. Consequently, I sense that there is not an overarching vision within this document that is not explicitly stated.
I believe that this problem would not be overly difficult resolve. I suspect that the figure on the cover of the document was an attempt to provide linkage. From this figure, I see that areas of “Predictive Modeling & Informatics” and “Nanomaterial Measurement Infrastructure” form an important overarching core that is used by “Human Health”, “Human Exposure”, and “Environment”. Ultimately, all of these areas feed “Risk Assessment and Management”. This figure and discussion should be a central piece of the Introduction.

3) The Introduction needs to clearly state what the current strategy is apart from the old strategy. The introduction weaves back and forth between old and new. I am confused as a new reader of this document. The result of this confusion is that the entire strategy appears non-cohesive and weak.

4) The development of partnerships with industry and other stakeholders are absent in this document, or perhaps they are simply too deeply embedded for me to find.

Specific comments

…

3) Miscellaneous issues:

• Figure 1-3 appears on page 4 but is not referenced in the text until page 7. It is also not really discussed so it feels like an afterthought rather than a central piece of the document.

• P9, line 25. I find it strange that the words ‘new and improved’ are inherent to the definition of ‘instruments’. I suggest that they be dropped.

• P9, line 21. I find that “developed by national metrology institutes” is too exclusive for the definition of “standards” in a document of this scope.

Fred Klaessig

The issues surrounding safety and societal acceptance are broader than the specifics of any one technology, and for that reason, I am a proponent of Objective # 4 (EHS and ELSI) becoming the NNI’s Objective #1. Some separation should be encouraged so that the enthusiasm, the jargon and the promotional fervor do not cast a strong shadow over thoughtful EHS evaluations. The definition of nanomaterial in this document, the EHS Research Strategy, is more appropriate to the first three NNI objectives and less so to the fourth, and consideration should be given to using the ISO definition in its stead along with a qualifying statement.

1). When breathing, we inhale particles and not ‘nano-enabled’ products;
2). When these particles pass into our lungs, the smaller particles reach the deep alveoli based upon hydrodynamic flow and particle size, not ‘unique’ properties;
3). The particles that reach the deep long may lodge there, while the larger particles are coughed up and then go down the GI tract;
4). The body’s initial response to lodged particles is based on the innate immune system’s general reaction to any foreign body plus some immediate chemistry such as wetting, acid-base reactions, dissolution; and
5). The body’s long-term response is closely tied to persistent inflammation, while the localized chemical response is closely tied to biopersistence and particle migration.

The above points favor the ISO definition of nanomaterial with an advisory that for EHS purposes, we emphasize particulate matter. A suggestion would be for the definition on page 1:

nanomaterial: material with any external dimension in the nanoscale or having internal structure or surface structure in the nanoscale

Note: For EHS purposes the primary interest is in respirable and ingestible particulates, where the information developed can be extended to larger nanomaterials.

Vincent Caprio, Nano Business Alliance (NbA)

First, NbA urges NNI to prioritize the development of consistent terminology to insure regulatory initiatives are properly focused. Standardized terminology reduces the potential for unwarranted and commercially stifling regulatory measures that have the potential to undermine the successful commercialization of nano enterprises.

Second, the Alliance urges NNI to enhance its commitment to educate the public, including legislators and regulators, about nanotechnology to foster a thorough understanding of the benefits nanotechnology offers.

David Wagger (Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries inc.)

Figure 1-4 [8/9–13] should show recycling pathways from Product End of Life to each preceding step (e.g., refurbished used electronics, reused electronics components, and shredded hard-drives) and identify potential recycling worker exposure. Also, the text regards recycling unevenly, including it in Ch. 2 and Ch. 3 [10/35–36; 15/11–13; 18/18–20; 20/19–26] but tending to omit it in Ch. 5 and Ch. 6 [43/22–23; 48/22–25; 62/18–20; 64/32–34]. Recycling should be identified where appropriate.

…

Finally, ISRI agrees that “stakeholders have an essential role to play” [80/3–4] and would be interested in participating in the Strategy’s efforts to meet NNI Strategic Plan Objectives 4.1.2, 4.2, and 4.3.2.

Paul Sarahan

With respect to Chapters 4 and 5, the report should emphasize the need for proposed research projects to focus on and be designed to reflect real-life material usage, exposure doses, and exposure pathways, so that the results can be easily translated to real world operations in a meaningful way.

Regarding Chapter 6, I would encourage a review of existing statutory and regulatory authority that could spur nano operations to perform risk assessments as a regular course of business. See, e.g., http://www.fulbright…technologySafety.pdf , http://www.fulbright…technologySafety.pdf

Michael Ellenbecker

Page Line Comment

14 30 TEM and SEM are very valuable tools for analyzing properties of ENMs. Standardized protocols for sample collection, preparation and analysis need to be funded and developed.

15 18 Standardized methods for evaluating workplace exposures to ENMs must receive a very high priority.

20 17 We believe that the international harmonization of exposure assessment methodologies is of utmost importance. We recommend that US NNI agencies work closely with colleagues in the EU and elsewhere to ensure this occurs. It is important to recognize that different exposure assessment methodologies are appropriate for different exposure scenarios, i.e., exposure methods used for epidemiology studies will require different measurement equipment and strategies than exposure methods used for comparison to permissible exposure limits.

20 30 Again, it is very important that consistent quantitative assessment methods be used in all countries, so data can be compared and correlated.

24 4 International harmonization and consistency is extremely important here, since it is likely that in the near future the only way to establish large enough cohorts of workers exposed to a particular ENM is by combining populations from different countries.

30 6 The lack of any funded health surveillance projects is of great concern. Such projects should be designed and funded with international partners.

30 10 The safe levels of exposures should consider the effects of available controls applied to such exposure when the evaluation was taken, this is usually important for workplace exposure. Thus, the information about the control strategies used and associated with the studied exposure has to be reported.

30 30-38 The assessments for populations who are exposed to consumer products containing engineered nanomaterials will require a different evaluation/assessment strategy compared to workplace exposures.

31 3 The assessment models require further evaluation to be adopted for different scenarios. This will need large funding to develop the tools and appropriate instrumentation.

31 5 Harmonization of assessment models and data collection with international partners is important for further development on health surveillance.

60 44 We strongly agree with the statement that studies on exposure control methods are lacking. Equal emphasis must be given to controlling exposures as to evaluating them; the current NNI strategy seems to favor evaluation over control, which is a mistake in our view.

70 15 We strongly believe that another key principle should be “Develop effective strategies to effectively control exposures to ENMs.”

72 43 We agree with the importance of international coordination. All ENM research should be performed with an eye towards international coordination.

Lockheed Martin

The recommendation to create an exposure registry deserves further exploration.

For example:

1. Who would establish the program to gather physician case reports and other reports of adverse events?
2. What constitutes exposure and what factors determine who is entered into the registry? Exposure needs to be categorized. For example, the type of nanomaterials used in the workplace, exposure estimates, and control measures should be documented. Otherwise, data might not be collected in a format or using a method which could be used for future studies.
3. There is no specific health impact identified, so would medical surveillance constitute a research study? Do the criteria and requirements for human subject research need to be applied?
4. What type of medical surveillance should be performed? There is a wide variety of nanomaterials, and it is not likely that one type of medical surveillance will suffice for all nanomaterials. With the exception of draft recommendations from NIOSH for carbon nanotubes/nanofibers, very little has been published on this issue. Thus, NNI should consider providing recommendations for appropriate medical surveillance.

References to the “transformation products” of nanomaterials and the potential for human exposure to these transformed materials appear in the Human Health and other sections of the NNI document. The draft creates the impression that generation of “transformation products” from nanomaterials is a foregone conclusion and that there is potential for a biological response. Although basic environmental chemistry may allow one to predict how a chemical will be transformed when released into the environment, this is not necessarily the case with nanomaterials/nanoparticles due to their unique properties. NNI should support well-designed studies regarding if/how specific nanomaterials are transformed in the environment. This would provide useful data while saving resources otherwise expended seeking biological responses to an unknown or nonexistent transformation product.

The use of toxicological data to create computational models for predicting toxicity in silico along with references to high throughput testing are mentioned in the Human Health section. These technologies hold great promise for the future. However, a substantial amount of work remains to be done in developing reliable, reproducible methods for conducting in vitro and in vivo toxicity testing. The emphasis for the near term should be placed on refining the latter methods and collecting data essential for developing and understanding the toxicity associated with different nanomaterials.

Christopher Bosso, Ronald Sandler, and Jacqueline Isaacs

Environmental Justice. The EHS strategy makes only one reference to environmental justice (p. 40), and not in its standard understanding as the disproportionate exposure of high-minority and low-income communities to environmental hazards. Nanotechnologies and nanomanufacturing processes are likely to produce both environmental benefits and burdens, so any meaningful EHS strategy must address research, planning, and policy outcomes necessary to ensure that nanotechnology reduces any unjust distribution of environmental burdens and benefits. It is crucial that any meaningful EHS strategy promote the development of nanotechnology ways that distribute the benefits justly – e.g., that remediation focus on toxins prevalent in environmental justice communities and that “environmental illnesses” on which resources are spent include those, such as asthma, that are more prevalent in environmental justice communities. Whether nanotechnologies are likely to exacerbate or alleviate environmental injustice depends on how they are implemented, disseminated, and situated (and who or what factors determine these); who controls them; what sorts of oversight and regulations pertain to them; and how effectively these are enforced. To address such components require substantial community engagement and significant policy development. The EHS strategic plan must, therefore, include a research strategy for these aspects of environmental justice.

Regulatory design. The EHS strategy makes no reference to fostering a deeper understanding of the suitability of existing regulatory structures and approaches to nanotechnology. There is real doubt about the efficacy of existing federal environmental and health statutes (e.g., TSCA, FIFRA), and the current capacity of federal regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA, FDA) to adequately address the expected deluge of nanoscale applications and products. The situation at the state level is of even greater concern since state governments are often in the front lines when addressing environmental and health concerns. The absence of a focus on the basic design or orientation of an effective 21st century regulatory regime is glaring.

Public Outreach and Education. Public outreach and education is among the core strategic goals of the NNI, yet the EHS research strategy nowhere addresses these concerns. Developing effective models and strategies for engaging the public about nanotechnology EHS concerns in general and in particular contexts (e.g. siting of a nanomanufacturing facility) should be part of any EHS research plan aimed at promoting the public good. For example, a crucial component of environmental justice – and of democracy – is the right of citizens to know about possible EHS concerns in their community. Strategies for communicating about EHS to communities that build on existing best practices need to be developed. Moreover, communities need to be engaged to determine what their EHS concerns are and what sorts of environmentally beneficial nanotechnologies would be most important for their community. A research strategy is therefore needed to develop effective methods of public engagement to teach and learn from a variety of “publics” regarding EHS concerns and goals. Such engagement is crucial to the responsible development of nanotechnology, and may also reveal research needs and goals that are not readily recognized by the EHS research community.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/10/15/us-national-nanotechnology-initiative-to-release-latest-environmental-health-and-safety-ressearch-strategy-oct-20/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2011/10/10/new-models-needed-to-master-technology-trends-world-economic-forum/ http://2020science.org/2011/10/10/new-models-needed-to-master-technology-trends-world-economic-forum/#comments Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:36:15 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4421

In his opening remarks at this year’s Summit on the Global Agenda, World Economic Forum founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab placed the need for new models to support effective use of technology innovation firmly on the table.

This is the fourth year I have participated in the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Summit – an intense two-day meeting of over 700 thought leaders from around the world to explore global emerging issues and opportunities and to begin developing possible solutions.

On the Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies, we have been working hard on getting the opportunities and challenges presented by emerging technologies on the radar of top-level decision-makers.  Not because we think they should know about the latest cool technologies, but because we feel that effective solutions to complex challenges demand an integrated and proactive approach to technology innovation.

It’s been a tough task – high level decision makers are often uneasy talking about science and technology, and prefer to assume that “techies” will deliver technology-based solutions to pressing problems as and when they are necessary.  Sadly, this is a model that doesn’t work well, and is rapidly running out of steam in the face of accelerating technological capabilities, increasing global connectivity and diminishing resources.

So it was gratifying to hear WEF’s Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab highlight the need for new models to master technological trends in the Summit’s opening keynote.  Schwab emphasized the need for new models in five areas – the fifth being how we handle accelerating technologies:

“Ladies and gentlemen, fifth, we need a new model to master the trend of technology. The velocity of technological change, for which we are not really prepared, will accelerate in an exponential manner, having significant implication on all of us. What is particularly striking, for me as an engineer I may add, is the character-changing nature of technological change. Today’s technological evolution no longer solely affects what we are doing, but also affects who we are. Of course, the internet in many ways is still a tool. But it has also become a part of our internal DNA. This new dimension of technological progress and societal change is still in relative infancy. The other ways of forthcoming evolutions in technology such as genetics and STEM cell technology, nanotechnology, and numerous sciences and so on, will all provide opportunities and threats regarding the ultimation of ourselves. And this raises fundamental moral and ethical issues, for which we are not yet prepared, and for which we have to prepare new models.”

(The full address can be watch on YouTube)

This is an important high-level endorsement to think differently about how we develop and use technology innovation for the greatest good, and it sets the scene for the Council on Emerging Technologies’ work over the next year.

We still have our work cut out – but at least we know that we have the strong support as we explore new models of developing and deploying technology innovation as successfully, safely and sustainably as possible.

Cross-posted from The Risk Science Blog:

In a recent letter to the journal Nature (Nature 476; 399), Hermann Stamm of the European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (JRC-IHCP) defended the need to define engineered nanomaterials for regulatory purposes. The letter, titled “Nanomaterials should be defined”, was a direct response to my earlier commentary in Nature “Don’t define nanomaterials”.

Stamm’s letter is behind a paywall and so not easily accessible to many readers. But these are the main points he makes:

• A definition for engineered nanomaterials is required for labeling purposes, and would assist industry and regulators in identifying where specific safety assessments might be necessary.
• This should identify a general class of materials for attention, whether they are benign or hazardous.
• Nanomaterials have many properties not shared by their larger-scale counterparts, some of which have safety implications. And an increasing number of products containing novel nanomaterials are entering the market.
• Engineered nanomaterials are heterogeneous. But, they all have structures on the nanoscale which modify their other properties. Because of this, size is therefore most appropriate parameter to base a regulatory definition on.

Stamm also references a Joint Research Center Reference Report on “Considerations on a Definition of Nanomaterial for Regulatory Purposes”, co-authored by him and published in 2010.

As is probably clear from my Nature commentary (an early draft is freely available here), I have some sympathies with the challenges the JRC and regulators across the world are facing. Without a doubt, sophisticated materials arising from nanoscale science and engineering are presenting safety challenges that are not readily captured by current regulatory regimes. Yet I am increasingly concerned that, with the momentum that has built up behind the field of nanotechnology, it is becoming increasingly difficult to formulate evidence-based questions that will lead to science-justified regulation. And despite policy makers repeatedly stating that any form of nanomaterial regulation should be science-based, I have the sense that they are scrambling to use science to justify a predetermined conclusion – that engineered nanomaterials should be regulated on the basis of a hard and fast definition – rather than using science to guide their actions.

Instead, I would suggest that we need to put aside preconceptions of what is important and what is not here, and start by asking how new generations of sophisticated (or advanced) materials interact with biological systems; where these interactions have the potential to cause harm in ways not captured within current regulatory frameworks; and how these frameworks can be adapted or altered to ensure that an increasing number of unusual substances are developed and used as safely as possible – no matter what label or “brand” is applied to them.

The materials that most current regulations were designed to handle are pretty simple by today’s standards. Sure they can do some nasty things to the environment or your body if handled inappropriately. And without a doubt some of the risks associated with these “simple” materials are not yet well understood – especially when it comes to long term and trans-generational impacts.

Yet it’s hard to escape that reality that researchers are now designing new materials from the ground up that behave in novel ways, that have few analogs in the world of conventional materials, and that exhibit different properties according to the environment they are in. And as they do, it is becoming increasingly apparent that many of the regulations we rely on are ill-equip them to deal with the pending flood of sophisticated materials that is coming our way.

The development of relatively simple engineered nanomaterials in recent years has highlighted this disconnect between established regulations and the new demands being placed on them. Fortunately, many of the first nanomaterials to emerge have not presented insurmountable challenges, and regulators have been able to stretch existing regulatory frameworks to cover them (although even this in itself has not been an easy task). But these are just the beginning of a trend in novel materials designed and engineered at the nanoscale that will transcend current regulatory mindsets.

So what what are the options here? Before this question can be answered, a clearer understanding of the issues being faced needs to be developed.

Some of these are explored by Graeme Hodge, Di Bowman and myself in a commentary in the August 2011 edition of the journal Nature Materials.

“The problem of regulating sophisticated materials” [DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat3085 - paywall] explores issues surrounding the safe introduction and use of complex new materials such as engineered nanomaterials, and suggests that there are seven key regulatory challenges that need to be addressed for progress to be made.

Unfortunately, I can’t reproduce the commentary in full here because of copyright restrictions. However, much of it draws on and builds upon an analysis presented in the recent International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies.

What I thought it would be useful to do here is to summarize the seven challenges discussed in both the Handbook and the Nature Materials commentary. These are summarized from the final chapter of the Handbook (the full chapter can be downloaded here) – further information can be found both in the Handbook chapter and in the Nature Materials Commentary.

I must confess to being rather saddened this morning to read Roger Highfield’s New Scientist blog on the state of nanotechnology in the UK.  Hot on the heels of reports that the company Nanoco is threatening to leave Britain for more fertile grounds, it left me wondering what has happened to the promise of ten years ago, when the UK was without doubt a player in the nanotech arena.  But the real sadness comes from that fact that, beyond the nanotech hype, nanoscale science and engineering are without doubt going to underpin some of the most significant technological breakthroughs of the coming years – and the UK is in severe danger of missing the boat.

Having left the UK eleven years ago to work in the US, I have retained a deep and personal interest in how Britain has invested in nanotechnology.  Back in 2004, the UK was at the forefront of the movement to develop economically strong and socially responsive nanotechnologies – the country was home to some of the world’s most prominent experts in the field; interdisciplinary research centers in Oxford and Cambridge were breaking new ground under internationally recognized leadership;  companies like Oxford-based Oxonica were paving the way to developing exciting new nanotech products; researchers in Edinburgh were leading the world in nanomaterial safety research; and the Royal Society set the pace globally developing this new technology responsibly.  Even in the US, where funding vastly outmatched that available in the UK, British research, innovation and action were having a sizable impact.

Working closely with the US and international nanotechnology community, I couldn’t help but be just a little bit proud of what the UK was achieving, and excited by where things were going.

So what went wrong?

Sitting here three thousand miles away, I’m not too sure.  Certainly rapid turnover in UK government nanotechnology leadership didn’t help sustain momentum here – the team that was leading the charge in the early 2000′s had moved on by the late 2000′s, with no clear succession plan in place.  What started as a clear vision and strategy appeared to get bogged down in uncomprehending bureaucracy.  R&D funding was not forthcoming and – more importantly – was not fully leveraged to ensure strategic impact.  And moves to ensure the safe development of nanotechnology ended up dominating the field- quite possibly at the expense of innovation.

There must be a lot more to the story than this, and I would be interested in hearing from people who have been in the thick of the rise and fall of UK nanotechnology over the past decade.  But without a doubt, the UK has moved from being a leader in the field to something of a straggler.

A personal experience I didn’t write about at the time foreshadowed this nearly two years ago.  I was in London for a series of events that happened to coincide with  a meeting of the UK Nanotechnologies Stakeholder Forum, overseen by DEFRA – the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.  As I was in the area and had some time, I went along.  At the time I was Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, and involved with working with and advising governments and organizations around the world on nanotechnology.  Given my work at the time, you’d have thought this might have been an opportunity for the forum to squeeze me for all I was worth on the current state of play of nanotechnology in the US and around the world.  As it was, I was relegated to being a passive observer – and not asked once to contribute to the meeting. (Just in case my memory was playing tricks I checked – these are the minutes of that meeting, where you can read my eloquently short contributions!).

The point here is not that I was ignored – that doesn’t bother me – but that the organizers of the main UK stakeholder forum on nanotechnology didn’t even realize that they could have pumped me for insider information on stuff that was directly relevant to nanotechnology in the UK.  Or they didn’t care – one of the other.

Two years on, nanotechnology in the UK is a shadow of its former self, and successful nanotech companies are threatening to move away – at a time when the commercial opportunities of nanoscale science and engineering are becoming increasingly clear.

Here I must clarify that I am often a little down on the brand of “nanotechnology” – there a lot of hype, re-branding and marketing associated with the term.  But beyond the brand, the science and engineering of working at the nanoscale – using the fundamental building blocks of everything in innovative and imaginative ways – is sound.  Whether in the area of materials, biology, or at the intersection of the two, the coming decades are going to be dominated by economies that have invested in the expertise, tools and frameworks to exploit nanoscale engineering and technology.

And in this emerging world, where will the UK be?

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/07/08/nanotechnology-has-the-uk-dropped-the-nano-ball/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2011/05/13/a-plug-for-the-2011-risk-science-symposium-risk-uncertainty-and-sutainable-innovation/ http://2020science.org/2011/05/13/a-plug-for-the-2011-risk-science-symposium-risk-uncertainty-and-sutainable-innovation/#comments Fri, 13 May 2011 14:00:37 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4202

Registration is now open for the 2011 Risk Science Symposium, and as I’m chairing it, I thought it worth giving a bit of a plug here.

The symposium brings together a fantastic cast of experts from very different backgrounds to explore the intersection of technology innovation and human health risk – with the aim of stimulating new thinking and ideas.

If you are grappling with emerging risk issues in industry, government, academia or the non-profit sector, this will be the place to be in September (not that I’m bias!).

A warning thought – space is limited to around 220 participants, so early registration is highly recommended.

Further details on the speakers, program and registration can be found here.

Some of the highlights include:

• An opening keynote by John Viera, Ford Motor Company Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering
• Insights from Paul Anastas, Science Advisor to the US EPA
• A UK perspective on technology innovation, risk and policy from James Wilsdon, Director of The Royal Society Science Policy Centre
• Cutting edge discussions on developments in science and technology that are pushing the boundaries of what is possible.
• Insights into emerging risk issues and innovative solutions
• A unique symposium dinner experience with designer Rodrigo Martinez from IDEO
• A chance to interact with some of the leading cross-disciplinary thought leaders on addressing emerging risk challenges.

Draft Program

Confirmed Speakers

Registration

As anyone who has followed my work over the past few years will know, I have a deep interest in the potential benefits and risks associated with emerging technologies, and in particular whether we can swing the balance towards benefits by thinking more innovatively about risk and how we address it. So it’s not surprising that I’m extremely excited to be chairing this year’s Risk Science Symposium at the University of Michigan, which is all about how we can think differently about human health risk to support sustainable technology innovation.

The symposium is shaping up to be a unique event, and one that I hope will expose participants to new ideas as well as energizing them to explore new possibilities as they work toward developing responsible and sustainable products based on technology innovations.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be firming up the program in time for early registration, opening on April 4.

Something I’m particularly excited about is that the symposium is turning out to be a great opportunity to explore some different formats for getting people to think differently about common challenges. Rather than use the tried and tested – but often bum-numbingly boring – “talking heads” lecture format, we will be basing most of the proceedings on a series of moderated discussions. These will be designed to engage experts from different perspectives – as well as other participants – in addressing key questions, under the guiding hand of a strong moderator.

It’s a format that one colleague described as “symposium speed-dating” – but I think it’s one that will encourage new ideas and insights, and lead to some extremely engaging exchanges. And in case you think that these will go the way of many panel discussions where participants simply use their time (and that of their fellow-speakers often) as a soap box for their own ideas, think again. We’ll be working hard to ensure that this doesn’t happen. Rather, the panels will be similar to those in the Risk Science Center Unplugged series of discussions – experts from different perspectives engaged in candid, animated yet carefully directed conversation.

And what about the the content?

Day one will lay the groundwork of why technology innovation is important, explore critical areas of technology innovation that are closely intertwined with questions over human health impacts, and begin to unpack why we need to think differently about risk and how we handle it if these technologies are to succeed.

Day two goes on to considering more closely the challenges of taking an integrative approach to addressing potential human health risks associated with technology innovation, and how new thinking on risk can increase the long-term success of technology innovation.

And in between the two days, we have what is shaping up to be a rather unique and definitely no-to-be-missed dinner event. But more on that another time.

Involved in the symposium will be leading experts from industry, government, academia, civil society, the media and other groups – all challenging and inspiring each other and the symposium participants to take a new look at how thinking differently about risk can support sustainable technology innovation.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be posting a series of blogs on the symposium. But in the meantime, you can check out the details on the symposium website, and follow progress on the Risk Science Center Facebook page.

And remember, early registration for the symposium opens April 4 – but be forewarned, space is limited.

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog.

As it did last year, the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos has left me with a daunting task – how do I summarize the highlights of the meeting in a single, short post?

The answer of course is that I can’t – Davos is so complex, diverse and multi-layered that no single account could do it justice. But sitting here waiting for the flight home, I wanted to capture at least something of the past few days.

World Leaders – world issues

This year saw the usual parade of world-leaders passing through Davos, selling their wares in public, while cutting deals in private.

In public and private, the unfolding events in North Africa, the Moscow terrorist attack and the world economy dominated discussions.

As is fairly typical at Davos, not too much that was startling or new was announced in public. But this is a meeting where off the record meetings and encounters are everything. And given the isolation, camaraderie and personal access that pervades Davos, the barriers to meaningful exchanges are perhaps lower here than at almost any other gathering of the great and good.

As one person pointed out to me – many delegates simply cannot afford to bring their usual entourage, meaning that the chances of conversations that get to the heart of issues – rather than leading a carefully choreographed dance around them – are reasonably high. And of course this is further enabled by the many social occasions that smooth the way for serious conversations.

Business leaders – revealed values. This stripping away of the buffers between public personas and the people behind them is one aspect of Davos that continues to fascinate me. It’s one of the few places I know if where you can get a sense of who someone really is, not who the PR machinery tries to convince you they are (again, because most people end up having to leave the PR machinery at the door). And no-where do I find this more revealing than in talking with business leaders.

It may be because the World Economic Forum actively develops partnerships with organizations that share its commitment to improving the state of the world, but I’m encouraged by the number of high profile CEO’s and business leaders I speak with here who are motivated by far more than bottom-line dollars. A cynic might claim that it’s all part of the PR machinery, which managed to sneak past the barriers. But I don’t think it is. There’s no need for these people to spend a week of their busy schedule talking about how to make the word a better place – and what excites and inspires them – unless they really mean it.

Davos provides a rare glimpse of the idealists still alive and beating in these world-wise corporate leaders. Of course, talk is a lot easier (and cheaper) than action, and these people have to deal with colleagues, shareholders, stakeholders and an economic landscape that doesn’t necessarily allow their true values and passions to flourish . But I suspect that one of the “positive dangers” of Davos is that, having revealed their inner-self to others who have the capacity to fan the flames, many business leaders emerge just that little more motivated to look beyond the bottom line, and toward changing the world for the better.

Global risks – global opportunities

This year, global risks were a central theme of the Davos meeting. The World Economic Forum formally launched the new Risk Response Network, and risk permeated many of the sessions. The aim is to establish resources and mechanisms to respond to emerging global risks more effectively than in the past – whether they are associated with natural disasters, social collapse, financial melt-down or technological failure.

While most of the discussions revolved around avoiding risk or managing the consequences, there were a few that touched on actively mitigating risk – and supporting global economic and social growth through new approaches to risk. These included developing the means to actively reduce risks through technological, policy and social mechanisms. But they also included the need to increase resilience within global institutions, infrastructure and communities – so that when things go wrong, the system can respond and adapt quickly and effectively.

This need for resilience was highlighted in a final session on global risk I was participating in, as we considered what lessons can be learned from events in Tunisia and Egypt on our dependence on and the fragility of the internet.

Science and technology – more than entertainment

Science and technology were more prominent than usual at this year’s meeting. There were packed-out sessions on the current state of science, and on contemporary issues such as the nature of the universe and personalized medicine. Yet there was still a sense that this was entertainment for delegates – a light distraction from the serious business of putting the world right, and something for accompanying partners to attend.

Nevertheless, there were indications that this is changing. The World Economic Forum has established a science advisory council that will be looking at how science can be better-integrated into the program in future years. A number of conversations I had with scientists and technologists – and there were a surprising number of them at the meeting – revolved around their desire to see science and technology rise up the agenda. And business leaders like Ellen Kullman – CEO of DuPont – were vocal about the need to pay more attention to technology innovation in building a better world.

As this is one of the aims of the Global Agenda Council I chair, it was good to see the beginnings of a groundswell toward shifting from science and technology as the Davos entertainment, to making them a significant part of broader discussions on building a sustainable future.

Social media – WEF goes grass-roots?

The use of social media was huge at this year’s meeting.

I’m not sure whether the impact is there yet – that will come – but content generation was significantly higher than previous years. Over 400 delegates were tweeting from the meeting, providing real-time insight into proceedings. Delegates were also encouraged to record short YouTube videos responding to questions posed by members of the public – and many did (including a number of prominent participants). Many delegates contributed guest blogs to the WEF blog, providing further insight into the meeting. And FaceBook marketing director Randi Zuckerberg (sister of Mark) conducted livestream webcast interviews with everyone from Tony Blair to Bill Gates to Bono.

Having seen social media in action at this year’s meeting, I’m convinced that this is the beginning of a powerful outreach and engagement by WEF that breaks the established boundaries of the organization – watch this space!

Real lives – strong inspiration

There are numerous misconceptions about Davos – many of them characterizing it as a meeting where gray men in gray suits with gray imaginations get together to schmooze with other, equally gray men, usually with no appreciable outcome. But as anyone who has been a part of the meeting can attest to, this is about as far from the truth as you can get.

At the heart of Davos is a common desire to change the world for the better. Invited participants are carefully selected according to what they do – not just who they are (even the celebrities are here because of the initiatives they are involved in, rather than the star status attached to them. And paying participants are carefully filtered and cultured to encourage a meeting where common values permeate the conversations.

This is perhaps best summed up in this year’s closing session, where Klaus Schwab, the Executive Chairman of WEF, spoke with Christine Lagarde, the French Minister of Economy, Nick Vujicic, President of Life without Limbs, and two of the Davos Global ChangeMakers – Raquel Silva and Dan Cullum.

The topic was “Inspired for a lifetime”. Unusually for a meeting characterized as full of “gray men”, there was hardly a dry eye in the house. (you wouldn’t have known at the time, but I’ve yet to speak to someone who was there who didn’t admit to tearing up at times). But I’m convinced that this wasn’t because of an overtly emotional program – it was simply because the delegates recognized in the panelists a common desire to act to make the world a better place.

Without the context of the preceding four days, the session might have come across as overly sentimental. But with the weight of Davos behind it, it was grounded in a reality that transcended mere sentimentality.

But don’t just take my word for it – the closing session of Davos 2011 can be viewed below.

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog.

Take a metaphorical slice through this year’s annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, and Global Risk would be writ large through every part of it.  Hot on the heels of the sixth Global Risk report, this year’s meeting saw the launch of the Risk Response Network – a new initiative to facilitate responsive, informed and integrative action on global risks.  And throughout the meeting, sessions and conversations abound that are grappling with understanding and mitigating emerging risks in today’s complex and interconnected world.

But important and impressive as this agenda is, I wonder whether there is something missing.

I’m approaching risk at Davos this year from three perspectives: exploring the relationship between science, innovation and risk; understanding the impact of emerging risks on public health; and developing technology-enabled approaches to risk mitigation.  The common themes here are science and technology – both as potential drivers of risk, and as sources of possible solutions.

From my work in science, technology and public health, it is clear that a deep understanding of the roles of science and technology in addressing risk is critical to building resilient and sustainable responses to global risks.  It is also increasingly clear that integrating this understanding into the process of addressing global risks is vital.

Yet this is where the World Economic Forum’s timely thrust to address global risks seems to be somewhat lacking.

Science and technology are certainly well-repented on the Davos agenda.  But I get the sense that they are part of the alternative program – “the entertainment” as one colleague described them.  This is probably a little harsh.  But the science and technology sessions do tend to be aimed at wowing delegates, rather than engaging them in exploring integrated solutions to pressing problems – a bit of light relief from the serious business of fixing the world’s problems.  Even the IdeasLab sessions, which get the closest to engaging people on emerging issues, struggle to make science and technology part of a larger conversation.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m the first to admit that there’s a lot to get excited about in contemporary science and technology.  But if robust solutions are to be found to global risks, science and technology must be integrated into mainstream discussions – not treated as an entertaining but often incomprehensible sideshow.

And that means elevating science to a seat at the table as new solutions to emerging risks are explored.

I realize that this is a daunting task. I’ll be the first to admit that scientists can be an intimidating bunch – an image they don’t necessarily try too hard to dispel.  But until scientists, engineers and technologists are seen as partners in the process of risk mitigation, not just  consultants or contractors, building resilient solutions to global challenges is going to be one tough call.

It’s that time of year again – 2000+ of the worlds top movers and shakers are beginning to descend on the Swiss ski town of Davos for this year’s Annual World Economic Forum meeting.  Political heavyweights like Clinton, Annan, Sarkozy and Cameron will be intermingling with the likes of Gates, Bono,  deNiro, Carreras and a plethora of CEO’s and others as they evaluate the state of the world, and plan for the future.

And amidst them will be a whole bunch of people who don’t live on such an ethereal plane – people like me.

This year’s meeting is on the theme “Shared Norms for the New Reality” – reflecting, according to WEF, the foremost concern of many leaders that we are living in a world that is becoming increasingly complex and interconnected and, at the same time, experiencing an erosion of common values that undermines public trust in leadership as well as future economic growth and political stability.

To address this theme, the meeting is built around four “pillars”:

• Responding to the New Reality
• The Economic Outlook and Defining Policies for Inclusive Growth
• Supporting the G20 Agenda
• Building a Risk Response Network

I’ll be speaking in a couple of sessions on risk, science and innovation in the 21st century, and will be blogging and tweeting from the meeting – when I get the chance.

The big session for me will be on Wednesday afternoon, when I undertake the role of “challenge” to a panel addressing the science agenda in 2011.

I think I’m supposed to be the one asking the awkward questions – the ones everyone’s dying to ask, but is to scared to.  A tough call given a lineup that includes Francis Collins (NIH Director), Rolf Heuer (Director-General of CERN), Christopher Viehbacher (CEO of Sanovi-Aventis) and Ray Johnson (senior VP and CTO of Lockheed-Martin).

I’ll let you know how it goes.

Through the rest of the meeting I’ll be catching people outside sessions and in the corridors to talk about the recent white paper Tim Harper and I published on technology innovation, and about new approaches to addressing health risks in a complex and interconnected world (aligning myself neatly with this year’s theme).

I’ll also be keeping an eye on the myriad other groups, events and sideshows going on here, including the “Davos Teens”.  These are a select group of five Global Changemakers – young social entrepreneurs – chosen to attend and participate in the meeting.  As well as being a brilliant idea (I wrote a little about the previous group last year), there’s every evidence that this will be a vibrant and challenging group of teens who will be making every effort to shake up the middle-age pomposity that sometimes threatens to overwhelm Davos.

Then there are the parties.  Actually, I’m not making much headway into the party scene yet – my attempts to press leading figures for tips on getting an invite to the infamous Google party went no-where.  Even Boris Johnson didn’t return my email, although I did get a reply from Alison Levine – who sadly was as much in the dark as me).  But the week is young…

In the meantime, time to catch the plane from a snowy Michigan to a Snowy Switzerland, and work out exactly what I’m going to be challenging Francis, Rolf et al. on…

Further information on the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos can be found here.  There will also be regular and relatively informal updates on the WEF blog (I might be writing a guest blog later in the week).  And participants tweeting from the meeting can be followed here.

“Technology doesn’t just happen” – people must be sick of hearing me say this.  Yet as chair of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies, it’s something I seem to end up saying rather a lot as we strive to help decision-leaders maximize the benefits of technology innovation, while avoiding untoward consequences.

The trouble is, it’s all too easy for people to assume that technology innovation will provide bolt-on answers to pressing problems as and when they are needed – a potentially dangerous misconception.  Which is why the Council has just published a new paper through the World Economic Forum that looks at how we develop and use technology within an increasingly complex and interconnected society, and how we can translate this into developing timely, cost effective and acceptable solutions to pressing global challenges.

Building a Sustainable Future: Rethinking the Role of Technology Innovation in an Increasingly Interdependent, Complex and Resource-constrained World is co-authored by myself and Tim Harper – director of CIENTIFICA Ltd. – and takes a hard look at the increasingly tough task of ensuring technology innovation helps solve the problems we need it to solve as a society, rather than just the ones that are easy to solve.

In it, we recommend that action is needed in seven areas, including increasing access to intelligence on new technologies; building new partnerships and engaging more effectively with stakeholders; re-examining how innovative ideas are translated into effective solutions to pressing problems; and rethinking the process of global technology governance.

Working with my colleagues on the Emerging Technologies Global Agenda Council, I kept coming back to three things in particular as we crafted the paper:

How can we ensure relevant and responsive technology-based solutions to problems are available as and when they are needed? I worry sometimes that focus too much on the successes of technology innovation in helping address issues,  and neglect to contemplate our failures.  Yet it is where we have failed to cure a disease, or to relieve poverty and hunger, or to increase someone’s quality of life, that we have the most to learn.  It’s easy to match a new technology to a pressing need and claim success. It’s much harder to start with a need, and develop technology-based solutions that will help resolve it – especially if timescales are long and profits are potentially marginal.  How can we change the paradigm so we start with the problem, not the solution?

How can we proactively invest in technology innovation so that it gets us where we need to be, when we need to be there? I am constantly surprised at the blind faith many people have in science and technology – assuming or hoping that it will deliver just-in-time solutions to just-discovered problems.  The reality is that it takes years – decades even – of targeted research and development to arrive at relevant and responsive technology innovations.  Which means that in today’s world, we need to become increasingly forward-thinking and integrative in how we craft and implement the science and technology agenda.  How can we move away from technology innovation being perceived as an off the shelf solution to problems, and toward it being understood as an integrated part of addressing issues?

How can we avoid new risks from new technologies, while also using them to reduce established and emerging risks? Emerging technologies lead to new potential risks – thousands of years of technology innovation attest to this.  As the rate of technology innovation increases and the world becomes increasingly interconnected, we are going to need new ways to respond to these risks if we are to build a sustainable future.  Yet there is another side to the innovation-risk equation.  Technology innovation also has the potential to provide the means of managing or avoiding old and new risks – but only if it is developed and implemented appropriately.  How do we ensure that emerging technologies are an integral part of the toolkit we use to reduce risks, and improve quality of life?

These weren’t the only drivers behind the paper – there were many other issues we grappled with, and high on the agenda was the economic imperative of thinking increasingly smartly about how we develop and use emerging technologies.  But the questions surrounding quality of life and risk struck a particular chord with me, having worked at the intersection between emerging technologies, risks and benefits for a number of years.

Next week sees the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.  This year the theme is Shared Norms for the New Reality, and is built around four “pillars”: Responding to the New Reality; The Economic Outlook and Defining Policies for Inclusive Growth; Supporting the G20 Agenda; and Building a Risk Response Network.

I will be there, talking to people about the Building a Sustainable Future paper in the context of each of these pillars.  But it is that last pillar that I will be focusing on in particular.  Sustainability depends on getting smart about identifying, addressing and managing risks – often before they have happened, and this means getting smarter on how we develop and use new technologies.  The potential is there to do great things.  There’s also the danger of technology innovation increasing the chances of harm if we aren’t careful.  The trick will be to learn how to be more sophisticated, integrative and informed in how we develop and use technology innovation.  And to ensure we are proactive in planning for a technology-driven future.

Because… technology doesn’t just happen – you know!

_______

The Building a Sustainable Future white paper can be read and downloaded here.  Tim and I also gave a guest blog on the paper on the World Economic Forum blog – ForumBlog.org

Getting an unbiased perspective on nanotechnology is probably as close to impossible as you can get.  Governments invest in nanotech because they believe in its ability to inspire new research and stimulate economies and social change.  Corporations invest in nanotech because they think it will give them an edge in a hyper-competitive world.  Neither is likely to tell you that nanotechnology is not a good thing, without having very strong reasons to do so.  And NGO’s?  Non Government Organizations come in so many flavors that about the only generality that can be made is that they exist for a purpose – and that purpose is rarely based on an unbiased world-view.

One of the more vocal NGO’s in the nanotechnology arena has been the Canadian-based ETC Group. Formerly the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, ETC is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights.  To this end they often cast a critical eye on big-government and big-business-driven technology developments which – in their estimation – threaten to undermine the cultural, environmental and human rights values they adhere to.

Back in 2002, ETC called for a mandatory moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in products, based on growing concerns over the uncertain health impacts of some nanomaterials.  The call didn’t win them many friends in government or industry, and established the group as having an aggressive social agenda as they raised questions about the emerging field.

Then in 2005, the ETC Group surveyed the political landscape of nanotechnology (through their eyes) in a special report on “nanogeopolitics”.  They concluded

“With public confidence in both private and government science at an all-time low, full societal dialogue on nano-scale technological convergence is critical. It is not for scientists to “educate” the public but for society to determine the goals and processes for the technologies they finance. There is no need for a sui generis (and inevitably voluntary) code of conduct for nanotech, but there is need for a much broader and legally-binding International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies (ICENT). South governments negotiating commodity and manufacturing trade-offs at the WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong in December will be asked to give away sovereignty in exchange for market access for raw materials or finished goods that may quickly become irrelevant with nanotechnology’s development.”

Now, ETC have revisited the nanogeopolitical landscape with a follow-up report: The Big Downturn?

This is clearly an assessment with an agenda – the ideology behind it is that technology development doesn’t by default enhance cultural and ecological diversity and human rights, that the actions of big-government and big-business need to be held up to close scrutiny, and that those with a vested interest in developing new technologies cannot be trusted to develop them responsibly without the support of a strong international regulatory framework.

That said, it is a well-researched report that is worth taking seriously – especially because it provides a worthy counterweight to pro-nano assessments.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not an unbiased report.  Evidence is weighed on the scales of social and environmental justice, with an eye to confirming what was already assumed.  Because of this, some pieces of information are missing, and others are given a somewhat less negative assessment than they perhaps warrant.  And there is often what I would consider a naive perspective on what nanotechnology actually is, or the effectiveness of hard regulation in ensuring safe and socially beneficial technology development.

Yet many of the evaluations in areas that I am familiar with do the source material justice, and reflect concerns that have been articulated by others.  The information presented in the report – backed up by over 400 citations – is informative, and is delivered in a style – intentionally I’m sure – not too dissimilar from a number of frequently quoted commercial nanotech analyses.  In some cases, the report doesn’t even go as far as I would have expected.  For instance, it stops short of examining the socioeconomic ramifications to developing economies of trying to keep up with the US/EU/Russia/Asia nanotech machine – perhaps more out of fear of being left behind rather than the certainty of social and economic growth.

Ultimately, this is a report that is a foil to assessments coming from pro-nanotechnology sources, which are almost always biased in the opposite direction, and in this role it is a useful resource.

If you have a vested interest in nanotechnology succeeding commercially, or are dependent on nanotechnology-related funding, or are ideologically-committed to the concept of technology-driven social development, you tend to think more carefully about writing stuff that could undermine a nanotechnology-future than you do about writing stuff that might support it. This is a bias that infuses government and industry reports.  It’s also a bias that I admit appears in the stuff that I write – I do adhere to the idea that technology-based solutions can help address pressing issues.  And that’s OK – it’s the way things work.

But it is important to recognize this bias.  And to balance it out by considering alternative perspectives.

This latest nanotech report from ETC does need to be read with open eyes.  But it does present an important counter-view that should be taken seriously as technologies such as nanotechnology are developed and deployed.

In reading it, you probably won’t agree with everything, and may occasionally find yourself having to resist the urge hit something – or someone.  But it does provide a comprehensive and important perspective on the broader social and political ramifications of the push to develop nanotechnology.

But that’s just my opinion – you might want to read it for yourself, just to check how off the mark I am!

In an interconnected world, global issues demand integrative solutions.  It’s a statement that many people would agree with – in systems where associations between cause and effect are complex, you ignore synergistic inter-relationships between factors at your peril.

But when it comes to technology innovation, it seems that the rules don’t apply.

This week I am at the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Councils meeting in Dubai – I’m chairing the Council on Emerging Technologies.   Our task is deceptively simple: How do we as a society ensure emerging technologies support responsive, sustainable and resilient solutions to global issues, without them leading to new problems? But as we are learning, finding answers is not easy.  And the first hurdle we face is convincing people of the need to think holistically about emerging technologies.

It seems that all too often, for all the talk of integrative solutions to global issues, when it comes to technology innovation integration is the last thing on people’s minds.

I was forcibly reminded of the uphill struggle we face this afternoon, listening to BBC World News presenter Nik Gowing.  Gowing was moderating a debate on natural resource scarcity, to be broadcast on the BBC World Service in a few days’ time.  The debate addressed a specific question: As global population rises toward 9 billion people and the demand for natural resources such as water, food, oil and minerals increases, how do we meet the challenge of making diminishing resources go further?  On the panel were Louise Arbour, President and Chief Executive Officer of the International Crisis Group (ICG); James Cameron, Vice-chairman of Climate Change Capital; He Yafel, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations; Malini Mehra, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Social Markets (CSM) and Kevin Rudd, Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I was interested to see how systemic the panel’s thinking was on potential solutions, and in particular what their take was on the role of technology innovation.  So I was just a little surprised when the “technology count” – the number of times that technology was raised as part of the solution to dwindling resources – came out as a resounding zero.  This was a discussion on issues that are deeply influenced by technology innovation, which revolved exclusively around social, political and economic perspectives.

I was left wondering whether technology was not on the table simply because it is seen as too complex, or whether there was a naive assumption that, as crises arise, scientists and engineers will simply pull a metaphorical white rabbit out of their technology magic hat.

To be fair, the debate was specifically framed in terms of social, political and economic drivers.  But I have to wonder: if integrative solutions are the key to complex and interdependent issues like resource depletion, how can we ensure that technology innovation is part of the conversation, rather than a somewhat optimistic bolt-on?

This concern is fueled by many similar experiences, and is one reason why raising awareness of the need to integrate an understanding of emerging technologies into dialogues on a multitude of global issues is high on the Council on Emerging Technologies’ agenda.

And no-where is this more important than in responses to global risks. As society faces new systemic risks, emerging technologies have three key roles to play.  They can provide tools that enable emergent risks to be monitored, tracked and better-understood; they offer potential solutions to addressing emerging issues; and they can act as agents of change which may lead to a dramatically altered risk-landscape.  But for the positive potential that is nascent in emerging technologies to be realized, integrative approaches to their development are essential.  The danger of neglecting to do this is a potential failure of emerging technologies to lead to workable solutions to pressing issues.  Or worse – the emergence of technologies that instead of reducing risks, lead to greater risks.

Of course, there are many discussions taking place on how emerging technologies might solve global problems.  But they are usually separate from the social, economic and political factors that so often drive decision-making.  And in a technologically complex and interconnected world, this is a recipe for disaster.

In moving forward, emerging technologies need to be brought in from the cold.  They need to be moved up the global agenda.  And they need to take their place alongside social, economic and policy factors in crafting integrative solutions to interconnected issues.  Because the one thing we can be sure of is that if we don’t take an integrative approach to emerging technologies, when we most need a technology “white rabbit,” the hat will be empty!

I should add that even though I am the chair of the Emerging Technologies Council, these are my own views, and do not necessarily reflect those of the council.

Quick update 11/30/10: Tim Harper – fellow Council member – has just posted this helpful piece on the definition of emerging technologies: http://cientifica.eu/blog/2010/11/the-long-journey-from-nanotechnology-to-emerging-technologies/

Dan Sarewitz has a rather provocative commentary in Nature this morning, where he suggests that proposals to increase basic research may be good politics, but questionable policy.

The headline alone is probably enough to get some science-advocates’ blood boiling, whether they go on to read the piece or not: “Double trouble? To throw cash at science is a mistake” does nothing if not throw down the gauntlet to an already sensitive science community.

Beyond the provoking banner, Dan raises  serious if uncomfortable issues – there must come a point where investment in science is balanced within a much broader social context, and the consequences of not allocating funds elsewhere are weighed against the benefits of supporting research – especially blue skies research.  But reading the piece reminded me of an associated debate which seems to get rather less air time – the personal responsibility that comes with government research funding.

It’s an inescapable fact that, for every dollar, pound or Euro that governments invest in research, someone, somewhere is getting less money to spend on what they think is important.  In some cases, re-allocations may have minor social consequences.  In others, reduced spending elsewhere in favor of science may be profound impacts on the lives of individuals – especially those at the margins of society.

This delicate and never-perfect balance of limited resources between competing needs is at the heart of policy making.  Resource allocation is never simple, always contentious and more often than not a compromise between equally worthy needs.  But this means that in a socially responsive society, every hard-won government dollar comes with a burden of responsibility – to use it as effectively as possible to improve the lives of the the people who the government was elected to serve.

Which means that government-funded researchers should be probably be asking themselves (repeatedly): “How does my work benefit the society that is supporting it?”  Or, of they are brave, “Are people suffering because government dollars are supporting my research rather than going elsewhere?  And if so, what should I do about this?”

The answers may be as metaphysical as “my research provides insight into the nature of reality” to as broad as “the new knowledge I generate enriches the human experience” or as practical as “my work will help cure cancer.”  But the important thing surely is to ask the questions – and to act on the answers that come back.

I’m an ardent supporter of government-funded science, and I strongly believe (I use the word advisedly) that basic research is critical.  But it is not a right.  Every hard-earned dollar spent on research is a dollar less for someone else to do some good with.  Which means that we need to be prepared as scientists to ask the hard questions, and to grapple with uncomfortable answers.

If we do, the result will surely be science that plays a stronger, more integrated role within society – irrespective of absolute funding levels.

Back in the mists of time, I was approached with a crazy proposition – would I help co-edit a book on nanotechnologies regulation!  In a moment of weakness I said yes, and a little more than two and a half years later, the book is finally about to hit the shelves.

I actually think the resulting International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies rather a useful, coherent and engaging collection of chapters – my co-editors Di Bowman and Graeme Hodge did a wonderful job encouraging a bunch of top thinkers in the field to write under occasionally whimsical but always relevant titles.

To whet your appetite prior to the book’s release sometime in November, here’s a sneak peak at the contents:

PART I:    Concepts and Foundations

1.    Introduction: the regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies

Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard

2.    Philosophy of technoscience in the regime of vigilance

Alfred Nordmann

3.    Tracing and disputing the story of nanotechnology

Chris Toumey

4.    The age of regulatory governance and nanotechnologies

Roger Brownsword

PART II:    Frameworks for Regulating Nanotechnologies

5.    Nanotechnology captured

John Miles

6.    The scientific basis for regulating nanotechnologies

David Williams

7.    The current risk assessment paradigm in relation to the regulation of nanotechnologies

Qasim Chaudhry, Hans Bouwmeester and Rolf F. Hertel

8.    Regulating risk: the bigger picture

Karinne Ludlow and Peter Binks

9.    Producing safety or managing risks? How regulatory paradigms affect insurability

Thomas K. Epprecht

PART III:    Case Studies in Regulating Nanotechnologies and Nano-Products

10.    The evolving nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety landscape: A business perspective

Oliver Tassinari, Jurron Bradley and Michael Holman

11.    Regulation of carbon nanotubes and other high aspect ratio nanoparticles: approaching this challenge from the perspective of asbestos

Robert J. Aitken, Sheona Peters, Alan D Jones and Vicki Stone

12.    Approaching the nanoregulation problem in chemicals legislation in the EU and US

Markus Widmer and Christoph Meili

13.    A good foundation? Regulatory oversight of nanotechnologies using cosmetics as a case study

Geert van Calster and Diana M. Bowman

14.    Therapeutic products: regulating drugs and medical devices

Rogério Sá Gaspar

15.    Regulatory perspectives on nanotechnologies in foods and food contact materials

Anna Gergely, Qasim Chaudhry and Diana M. Bowman

16.    Regulation of nanoscale materials under media-specific environmental laws

Linda Breggin and John Pendergrass

17.    Military applications: special conditions for regulation

Jürgen Altmann

18.    Regulating nanotechnology through intellectual property rights

Gregory N. Mandel

PART IV:    The Future Regulatory Landscape

19.    The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: challenging the ‘benefits versus risks’ framing of nanotech innovation

Georgia Miller and Gyorgy Scrinis

20.    Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears

Christoph Meili and Markus Widmer

21.    The role of risk management frameworks and certification bodies

Thorsten Weidl, Gerhard Klein and Rolf Zöllner

22.    Risk governance in the field of nanotechnologies: core challenges of an integrative approach

Ortwin Renn and Antje Grobe

23.    International coordination and cooperation: the next agenda in nanomaterials regulation

Robert Falkner, Linda Breggin, Nico Jaspers, John Pendergrass and Read Porter

24.    Transnational regulation of nanotechnology: reality or romanticism?

Kenneth W. Abbott, Douglas J. Sylvester and Gary E. Marchant

25.    From novel materials to next generation nanotechnology: a new approach to regulating the products of nanotechnology

J. Clarence Davies

PART V:    Conclusion

26.    Conclusions: triggers, gaps, risks and trust

Andrew D. Maynard, Diana M. Bowman and Graeme A. Hodge

More information on the International Handbook on Regulating Technologies can be found here.  The anticipated publication date is late November.

In February 2008, the National Academy of Engineering launched 14 grand challenges for engineering.  These were the inspiration for this post, but rather than focus on the challenges themselves, I thought it would be interesting to consider how science and technology are going to help address them.  Over two years on, the ideas I was writing about here seem more relevant than ever – as I write this, I am putting the finishing touches to a World Economic Forum report that echoes many of the challenges I outlined back in March 2008.

Originally posted March 6 2008

Can current approaches to doing science sustain us over the next one hundred years?  An increasing reliance on technological fixes to global challenges — including nanotechnology — demands a radical rethink of how we use science in the service of society.

Over the next century we will perhaps be facing the greatest challenge in the history of humanity: sustaining six billion plus people on a planet where natural resources are running scarce and our every action results in a palpable environmental reaction.  Progress towards sustainability will only come through integrating relevant science with socially-responsible decision making.  Yet the science policy dogmas of the 20th century may be stretched to breaking point in the face of 21st century challenges.

And these challenges are immense. The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recently published 14 “grand challenges for engineering” — the culmination of a year-long project exploring and reviewing the greatest technological challenges facing us in the 21st century.  At the top of the list is development of economical solar energy and fusion-energy, followed by crafting carbon sequestration methods, improving access to clean water, creating improved medicines, preventing nuclear terror, and eight other pressing needs.  The challenges are a stark reminder of the limitations of our current capabilities, and what needs to change if we are to continue growing as a society in harmony with our surroundings.

The solutions to many of these challenges will come from emerging areas of science and technology that include nanotechnology, as well as areas such as synthetic biology and cognitive science — the science of how we use our mind to think and learn.  These are not the physics, chemistry and biology of 20th century science.  Rather, they represent a blurring of the boundaries between conventional disciplines — a mixing-up of ideas and concepts that has the potential to stimulate tremendous innovation.

For example, nanotechnology combines elements of physics and chemistry to find new solutions to old problems.  Cheap, efficient solar cells and access to clean water are just two areas that this emerging technology is showing promise in.  But combine the ideas of nanotechnology with molecular biology and you open the door to playing with the building blocks of life itself — DNA.  Imagine what we could achieve by inventing new organisms that harvest energy, clean up pollution, and build new materials atom by atom.  Sounds like science fiction, but simple nanotechnologies are already being used in daily life; and synthetic biology is rapidly becoming a reality, with the first artificially constructed bacterium genome reported in January of this year.

In addressing the major challenges of the 21st century, it is the convergence of these new technologies that will deliver the solutions.  But policymakers, scientists and engineers will only be able to transform the new knowledge from research to practice if strong policies and frameworks are in place to support and nurture these emerging technologies. 20th century science and technology thrived on the twin dogmas of partitioned disciplines and knowledge diffusion.  Vast investment in basic research was thought to lead — eventually — to technological solutions; a Darwinian natural selection of the best ideas generated by self-absorbed researchers.  And while “interdisciplinary collaboration” was the mantra of many a grant proposal, few ventured far from the comfort of their particular disciplinary caste.

But if 21st century solutions are to be found to 21st century challenges, we need a new way of doing science.  This “smart science” must train future practitioners to work across conventional boundaries and remove the barriers to interdisciplinary research that continue to persist.  It must be socially relevant.  And it must engage citizens at every level — with the recognition that scientists need to be socially literate, as much as citizens need to be scientifically literate.

It is no exaggeration to say the state of the world our children’s children inherit will depend on the choices we make now, and one of the critical choices will be how we will develop and use science in the service of society. As we approach the 2008 U.S. presidential election, there is a ground-swell within the American scientific community in support of a presidential science debate.  While the idea of politicians talking science might have minority appeal, the consequences of bad science policy will have a major impact — and one that will be felt much sooner than the end of the century or even the end of the next term of office.

The end of the 21st century might look a long way off.  But it is the choices we make now that will determine the consequences our grandchildren and their children are faced with.  20th century approaches to science got us a long way, but they lack what it takes to address the challenges now facing us.  Nanotechnology and other emerging technologies that hold the seeds of future will not and cannot be sustained by 20th century thinking.  Instead, we need a 21st century approach to science to get us through the next one hundred years — and we need it sooner rather than later.

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

The global financial crisis of 2008-09 laid bare the inadequacies of global systems in an increasingly interdependent world, and highlighted the need to rethink the “architecture of global cooperation” – the idea at the core of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Initiative.  As the World Economic Forum publishes and discusses the outcomes of this intensive twelve month initiative, the critical need for up-front and integrated investment in sustainable technology innovation cannot afford to be overlooked.

If anyone is still in doubt that sustainable technology innovation depends on up-front investment in responsible development, just take a look at the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.  With strategic investment in planning for plausible outcomes, the unfolding environmental and human disaster could have been avoided, or at least substantially reduced.  Yet the failure to plan for the future and invest in technologies and strategies that would underpin safe and sustainable operations is indicative of a naive mindset within corporate and policy circles – that when problems occur, science and technology will deliver timely and effective solutions. 

Sadly, this is not the case.  In the face of high impact and increasingly complex technologies, new approaches are needed to developing the science, policies and tools that will underpin sustainable innovation.  This is at the center of a new proposal coming out of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Agenda to develop a Global Center for Emerging Technology Intelligence – or CETI.  The proposed Center aims to ensure that governments, businesses and other stakeholder organizations are equipped to make the most effective use of science and technology innovation in addressing the global challenges of the 21st Century.

CETI is just one of many proposals in the recently-published World Economic Forum Report of the Global Redesign Agenda – Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World.

As Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum writes in the report’s preface,

“Our purpose has been to stimulate a strategic thought process among all stakeholders about ways in which international institutions and arrangements should be adapted to contemporary challenges. This report summarizes and interprets the significance of the proposals that the Forum’s many communities have developed in response to this challenge.”

The ideas and proposals presented in the report are essential reading for anyone concerned about sustainable growth in a changing world.  But, just as the recent financial collapse and the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico were caused in part by a lack of foresight and investment in the future, many of the ideas here assume that science and technology will underpin proposed actions.  The reality is though that this will only happen with strategic investment in sustainable technology innovation on a scale that, as yet, does not occur.

And this is where the Global Center for Emerging Technologies Intelligence comes in.

The full CETI proposal can be read here.  But the main details of the proposed Center are outlined below:

Context

Emerging technologies are critical to long-term global prosperity. They represent the innovation that adds necessary economic and social value to materials, products and processes. And they provide potential solutions to a wide range of pressing global challenges including energy generation and storage, health care, climate change, food security and access to clean water. Yet without better global cooperation on technology innovation, many potential emerging technologies will not mature to the point at which they can be used effectively.

Government and corporate decision-makers are foundering in a world dominated by rapid and unprecedented social and technological developments. They are limited in their ability to anticipate and respond to new developments and they lack the mechanisms necessary to work with non-traditional but increasingly influential stakeholder groups.

Proposal

The Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence will directly address this need. A neutral, transparent and authoritative organization, the Centre’s leaders and staff will work with decision-makers at the highest level in industry, government and other organizations in ensuring the best possible tools are available to support the successful and sustainable development and implementation of new technologies.

The mission of the Centre is to ensure that governments, businesses and other stakeholder organizations are equipped to make the most effective use of science and technology innovation in addressing the global challenges of the 21st Century.

Explanation/Rationale

Why a Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence Is Necessary

Science and technology have been at the heart of economic growth, social prosperity and improvements in quality of life for close to ten thousand years. From the agricultural revolution to the information revolution, advances in society around the globe have been underpinned by new discoveries, and their innovative use in new products and processes. Nearly 250 years ago, the invention of the Spinning Jenny vastly increased speed with which cotton could be turned into yarn, revolutionizing the textile industry and helping usher in the industrial revolution. The discovery of penicillin in the early 1900’s allowed previously fatal infections to be treated, opening the door to modern surgical procedures. In the mid twentieth century, the invention and subsequent development of the transistor initiated a technology revolution that is still driving economic and social growth. And more recently, innovations in global communication, social networking and information processing have begun to empower global communities in ways unimaginable a few years ago.

Yet despite the clear impact of these and other examples, the continued success of science and technology as an engine for economic and social growth is not guaranteed. Over the past few decades, global economic and social landscapes have shifted radically, leading to new thinking on how to tap into the potential offered by emerging technologies. A growing global population, coupled with a widespread desire for a first-world quality of life, is placing unprecedented demands on resources around the world. Humanity’s actions are becoming uniquely entwined in environmental reactions, redefining our relationship with the planet on which we live and depend. And modern communications are making a mockery of geographical and institutional boundaries that have endured for hundreds and thousands of years. These three factors not only place new demands on how emerging technologies are used; they also rewrite the rules for using them effectively.

Recent attempts to introduce genetically modified foods into commerce in Europe provide a sobering lesson in how easy it is to mishandle emerging technologies. Despite little evidence to the contrary, apparent concerns over health and environmental impacts severely retarded the implementation of a technology that could save and improve millions of lives around the world. Yet these concerns were grounded in a backlash against corporate control that cut consumers out of the decision-making process. And through a socially-savvy media, people were galvanized to say “no” to “frankenfoods” – not because of the science and technology, but because of the way they were handled.

Missteps over the development of genetically modified foods are a prominent case among many where the trajectory of a technology has been dictated by social concerns as much as scientific evidence. It is becoming increasingly clear that hierarchical, evidence-based decision-making is not sufficient on its own to ensure the success of new technologies. In part, the situation is exacerbated by peer to peer global communications, where virtual groups can be informed about, motivated by and empowered to take action on emerging issues before institutional decision-makers are even aware there is an issue to respond to. We now live in a world where an incident in China, or the Middle East, can influence attitudes and actions in regions like Europe and the Americas in a matter of minutes through media like FaceBook and Twitter.

The impact on realizing the social and economic potential of new technologies is potentially profound. Established approaches to government and corporate policy-making founder in the new social order, and are limited in their ability to anticipate and guide new developments effectively. They lack the responsiveness, adaptability and foresight to anticipate hurdles to progress, or to work through partnership with non-traditional but increasingly influential stakeholder groups – including consumers.

Yet this disconnect between established policy mechanisms and new approaches to implementing emerging technologies is occurring at a point where future global prosperity is more dependent than ever on new science-based solutions to pressing problems.

Providing people with access to healthy food and clean water; managing climate change and its impacts; treating disease; generating and using energy wisely; coping with pollution—over the next fifty years, global challenges in these and similar areas will reach an unprecedented level. Without rapid and targeted advances in science and technology, humanity will not be able to face them without paying a large price. Now, perhaps more than at any time in history, we need the tools that science and technology provide to face an uncertain future. And just as the challenges are global in scope, so the solutions will need to be global in reach.

In emerging areas such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geoengineering, there is growing awareness that a new paradigm is needed if the technologies are to be developed effectively—one that predicts and avoids potential hurdles, develops and implements new technologies in partnership with multiple stakeholders, identifies and addresses possible health and environmental impacts before they occur, and responds rapidly to new developments. Yet there is a gaping chasm between the knowledge that a different approach to policy-making is needed, and an understanding of what this new approach should look like.

This is the gap that the Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence will fill. Working with decision-makers at the highest level in industry, government and other organizations, it will aim to ensure that decision-makers have the best possible tools at their disposal to ensure the successful and sustainable development and implementation of new technologies.

The Goals of a Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence

Be an authoritative and neutral source of intelligence on emerging technologies and the opportunities and challenges they raise

The Centre will work towards becoming the premier go-to source of information on emerging technologies for decision-makers, the media and the public. This will be achieved through developing a global network of experts on emerging technology policy, potential and risks, building in-house expertise, producing high value/high impact products and working closely with the media. The Centre will also promote accessibility, inclusiveness and strategic partnerships in an attempt to bridge divides that can characteristic advance technologies.

Provide timely information on emerging opportunities and challenges

The Centre will develop in-house expertise in identifying, evaluating and assessing new opportunities and challenges related to emerging technologies. Assessments of emerging issues will be published and made publicly available on a regular basis.

Bring senior stakeholders together to identify emerging issues

The Centre will bring high-level experts and decision-makers together on an annual basis to identify emerging issues and inform a rolling two-year programme of targeted projects.

Publish targeted research, analysis and recommendations

Based on a two-year strategic plan, the Centre will publish analyses and recommendations on key emerging technology issues.

The bottom line here is that sustainable technology innovation doesn’t just happen – it requires sustained, strategic and substantial up-front investment in the knowledge, frameworks and policies that will allow innovation to address global challenges without creating new problems.  CETI is one approach to addressing this need.  But whether this proposal is developed or something else is adopted in its place, one thing is very clear – global redesign will not happen unless we rethink sustainable technology innovation.  And for that to happen, science and technology need to be pushed much further up the global agenda.

Catching up with my email after a long day off the net, I see that a group of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) are urging EPA not to allow the use of an alleged nanotechnology-based dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico.  The letter from thirteen organizations was covered in a piece by Andrew Schneider on AOL Online earlier today – which had considerable pickup on the web from what I can tell.

Sadly, a combination of limited information from the company – Green Earth Technologies – and poor understanding by others – seems to have led to the situation being dominated by misunderstanding and misinformation.

Green Earth Technologies has been lobbying hard to get their product G-MARINE™ Fuel Spill Clean-UP! used in the Gulf of Mexico for some days now.  According to the company

G-MARINE Fuel Spill Clean-UP! is a unique blend of plant derived, water based and ultimate biodegradable ingredients specifically formulated to quickly emulsify and encapsulate fuel and oil spills. These plant derived ingredients are processed to form a colloidal micelle whose small particle size (1-4 nanometers) enables it to penetrate and breakdown long chain hydrocarbons bonds in oils and grease and holds them in a colloidal suspension when mixed with water. Once oil has been suspended in a nano-colloidal suspension, there is no reverse emulsion; the oil becomes water soluble allowing it to be consumed by resident bacteria in the water. This dispersant formula is protected by trade secrets pursuant to Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) Standard CFR-1910 1200. The ingredient list has been reviewed by the US EPA and contains no ingredients considered hazardous by OSHA.

Is seems to have been the “nano” in the above description – leading to the substance being dubbed a “nano-dispersant” – that has raised eyebrows.

The nano here is very small micelles – “particles” of molecules formed from molecules with one end that is attracted to water, and one which repels water.  I place particles in inverted commas as these really very small bubbles of one liquid in another – hardly like particles at all.  And like bubbles, they probably don’t last that long.

Reading the company’s Materials Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), it’s possible to get a good idea what is in the micelles – mainly natural oils, mild detergents and surfactants.  But the MSDS doesn’t go as far as being specific about the physical nature of the micelles.  This is not too surprising perhaps as micelles are commonly used in products, as well as occurring naturally.  They are also transient – they fall apart reasonably fast, just like bubbles.

Now to the letter from the NGOs.  It starts out

It has come to our attention that Green Earth Technologies (GET), Inc. is seeking approval from the EPA to disperse a large quantity of manufactured nanoparticles in the Gulf of Mexico, stating that the dispersal would remedy the oil spill recently suffered by the region. The for-profit company claiming to sell “totally green” products created from nanotechnology, wishes to scatter on land and in water its G- Marine Fuel Spill Clean-UP! (NANO Emulsion Technology) Oil Dispersant in areas affected by the BP rig collapse in the Gulf of Mexico.

The undersigned public-interest organizations respectfully urge the EPA to deny approval of this and similar projects that seek to release nanoscale chemicals or chemicals measuring less than 300 nanometers into the environment. In this case the company claims their product is composed of particles measuring 1-4nm. Manufactured nanoparticles have been shown to be toxic to humans, mammals, and aquatic life.

The argument made is that G-MARINE Fuel Spill Clean-UP! contains a nanoscale component, that nanoscale components have been shown to be toxic, therefore the dispersant should not be used.  The letter goes on to say:

We are not aware at this time of the exact nanoscale particles used in this ‘nano emulsion technology’ because this information is considered a trade secret by the company. Yet, we do know that most chemicals manufactured at the nanoscale hold unique and potentially toxic properties. While some new properties from the nanoscale may seem desirable, materials at this scale can also pose new toxicological risks. Nanoparticles have a very large surface area which typically results in greater chemical reactivity, biological activity and catalytic behavior compared to larger particles of the same chemical composition. Unfortunately, the greater chemical reactivity and bioavailability of nanomaterials may also result in greater toxicity of nanoparticles compared to the same unit of mass of larger particles. Other properties of manufactured nanomaterials that influence toxicity include: chemical composition, shape, surface structure, surface charge, catalytic behavior, extent of particle aggregation or disaggregation, and the presence or absence of other groups of chemicals attached to the nanomaterials.

Unfortunately, the letter falls into the all too common trap of mistaking a relatively unstable cluster of small molecules as a “nanoparticle,” and prejudicially tagging it with properties associated with very specific nanoparticles – many of which are unlikely to have any relevance here.

This is a serious mistake to make, as it undermines any science-based discussion of safety and risk by claiming the ingredient in question is something it is not, then inferring properties on it which it is unlikely to have.  And the danger here is that as soon as the science is taken out of the equation, the real likelihood of harm being caused becomes extremely difficult to address.

Then there is the AOL piece.

In the main, the piece is straight reporting of the situation – albeit with an emphasis on the nano-safety issue.  But one section in particular jumps out:

The report of the possible use of nano-dispersants has outraged Harbut, who heads the Environmental Cancer Initiative at Michigan’s Karmanos Cancer Institute.

“A decision to use nanoparticle-based dispersants in the gulf is less an engineering or environmental decision, but more a public health and individual patient care issue. As does asbestos, nanoparticles have been shown to cause an aggressive cancer called mesothelioma,” he said.

And like asbestos in its early usage, human health effects of exposure, ingestion or breathing of nanoparticles have been rarely observed, let alone studied.

“To dump tons of nanoparticles into the food and respiratory cycle in this manner is irresponsible,” Harbut told AOL News

Here, the conflation between nanoscale micelles, nanoparticles and mesothelioma is wrong and it is irresponsible.  Nanoparticles in general have not been shown to cause mesothelioma, neither is there any theory to suggest that they might – this is pie in the sky speculation.  Carbon nanotubes – a specific form of nanomaterial – might possibly be associated with the disease under some conditions, but this is still uncertain.  But carbon nanotubes are not what may would recognize as nanoparticles, and are certainly not the same as micelles.

Then there is the conflation between micelles and nanoparticles again.  Okay so technically a micelle might be likened to a nanoparticle – but in the same way a soap bubble might be likened to a soccer ball!

So where does this leave us?

The root of the problem here seems to have been Green Earth Technologies’ use of the term “nano” – if they had just talked about micelles, no red flags would have been raised and it’s unlikely that the NGO letter would have found its way to EPA.  This term clearly term led to some confusion amongst organizations sensitized to the word.

Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible to throw the safety concerns out simply because of a definitional technicality.

Nanoscale materials do raise new safety questions – including nanoscale micelles.  But often, these questions can be addressed to a reasonable degree.  I’m not going to defend the safety evaluations that have been made by Green Earth Technologies as I don’t have the data.  In fact the company possibly shoots itself in the foot by being rather optimistic about the safety of their product.  This appeared today in an open letter from the company for instance:

Does G-MARINE OSC-1809 Oil & Fuel Spill Clean-UP! have any adverse affects on humans / animals or the environment?

None whatsoever. G-MARINE OSC-1809 Oil & Fuel Spill Clean-UP! has shown absolutely no adverse effect on humans or animals. All of our Marine products are manufactured from ingredient LISTED ON THE EPA CLEAN INGREDIENTS (1) List. It has a zero OHSA hazard rating and in Lab Tests (2) it has been shown to have no adverse affects whatsoever to nose (inhalation), mouth (ingestion), ears, skin, or eyes. Even if the person is subjected to a concentrated overdose, there has been no noticeable adverse affect. The Micelles BECAUSE of the EXTREMELY SMALL SIZE do NOT persist in the environment and Bio-degrade into harmless elements in 10 days as per EPA guideline in the CLEAN INGREDIENTS list.

“None whatsoever” is a dangerous assertion to make on adverse effects, as it implies every possible test has been done, and every conceivable eventuality accounted for.  And people tend to be suspicious of such absolute statements – better to be honest and admit the bounds of current knowledge.  Yet it is reasonable to assume that small micelles made up of well-evaluated ingredients are unlikely to have long-term environmental impacts that go beyond that of these ingredients – mainly because the micelles will break up and release their constituent components reasonably rapidly.

Could they get to places where they can cause harm in the short term because of their size?  It’s possible – and I would hope that toxicity tests would at least indicate whether this is an issue.  But there is a danger of making up potential yet implausible harm scenarios here because of a misunderstanding of the differences between micelles and other forms of nanomaterials.

And this is perhaps the most important message to come out of this situation.  In the case of the Gulf oil spill, inaction is not an option – but informed action must be based on the best possible information rather than questionable speculation.  This places the onus on companies to get the safety testing on their products right, even if it means going above and beyond what they consider necessary (especially if they decide to use a loaded term like “nano”).  It means that regulators need to ready to move fast when questions like this are asked – delayed action or misinformed action both have the potential to lead to adverse consequences.  And it also means that organizations and individuals influencing the debate and the decisions made must make sure they get the science right – speculative fear can only be divisive.

Making wise choices on the dispersants used in the Gulf of Mexico is vitally important, and bad choices could have lasting consequences.  And it is right and proper that questions should be asked over the use of one product over another.  But if the spill is to be dealt with effectively, these choices must be science-informed – otherwise no-ones interests are served in the long run.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/05/28/nano-dispersants-and-nano-hysteria-time-to-think-about-the-science-folks/feed/ 24 http://2020science.org/2010/05/26/as-scientists-create-the-first-synthetic-cell-the-future-safety-of-synthetic-biology-will-depend-on-sound-science/ http://2020science.org/2010/05/26/as-scientists-create-the-first-synthetic-cell-the-future-safety-of-synthetic-biology-will-depend-on-sound-science/#comments Wed, 26 May 2010 15:34:34 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3238

Last week’s announcement from the J. Craig Venter Institute that scientists had created the first-ever synthetic cell was a profoundly significant point in human history, and marked a turning point in our quest to control the natural world.  But the ability to use this emerging technology wisely is already being dogged by fears that we have embarked down a dangerous and morally dubious path.

It’s no surprise therefore that, hot on the heels of last week’s announcement, President Obama called for an urgent study to identify appropriate ethical boundaries and minimize possible risks associated with the breakthrough.

This was a bold and important move on the part of the White House.  But its success will lie in ensuring the debate over risks in particular is based on sound science, and not sidetracked by groundless speculation.

The new “synthetic biology” epitomized by the Venter Institute’s work – in essence the ability to design new genetic code on computers and then “download” it into living organisms – heralds a new era of potentially transformative technology innovation.  As if to underline this, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce will be hearing testimony from Craig Venter and others on the technology’s potential on May 27th – just days after last week’s announcement.  But the technology also raises serious ethical and safety concerns: Is it right and proper to meddle with the fundamental basis of life?  What happens if the technology gets into the wrong hands? And what might occur when synthetic life meets the natural world?

Questions like these have challenged scientists, ethicists and decision makers for many years, and with good reason – our headlong charge into advanced genetic manipulation is taking us into uncharted and uncertain territory.  But the breakthroughs made by Craig Venter and his team place a new urgency on developing policies, ethics and research strategies in support of safe and acceptable synthetic biology.

The ethics in particular surrounding synthetic biology are far from clear; the ability to custom-design the genetic code that resides in and defines all living organisms challenges our very notions of what is right and what is acceptable.  Which is no doubt why President Obama wasted no time in charging the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to look into the technology.

But in placing ethics so high up the agenda, my fear is that more immediate safety issues might end up being overlooked.

It’s not that safety isn’t on the radar – there is already tremendous speculation over the potential impacts of synthetic biology.  But with one or two exceptions (including work from the J. Craig Venter Institute), there seems little science behind many of these conjectures.  And actions based on speculation alone may endanger the tremendous good that could come from this rapidly emerging technology, while potentially opening the door to unintended consequences.

Rather, scientists, policy makers and developers urgently need to consider how synthetic biology might legitimately lead to people and the environment being endangered, and how this is best avoided.

What we need is a science-based dialogue on potential emergent risks that present new challenges, the plausibility of these risks leading to adverse impacts, and the magnitude and nature of the possible harm that might result.  Only then will we be able to develop a science-based foundation on which to build a safe technology.

Synthetic biology is still too young to second-guess whether artificial microbes will present new risks; whether bio-terror or bio-error will result in harmful new pathogens; or whether blinkered short-cuts will precipitate catastrophic failure. But the sheer momentum and audacity of the technology will inevitably lead to new and unusual risks emerging.

And this is precisely why the safety dialogue needs to be grounded in science now, before it becomes entrenched in speculation.

In six months’ time, the President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues will be presenting President Obama with its findings and recommendations on the implications of synthetic biology.  Hopefully as well as grappling with the ethics of nanotechnology, their recommendations will also address the potential and plausible risks associated with the technology, and the science that is needed to ensure its safe development and use.

Because without sound science guiding the safety dialogue, there is every chance that synthetic biology will be derailed by mistrust, misinformation and misunderstanding.

And if this happens, it’s hard to see how anyone can win.

Marc Saner at Carleton University in Canada sent this timeline of key nanotech policy events to me the other day.  It’s probably the most comprehensive compilation of events influencing the development of nanotech policy in America, Europe and Australia I’ve seen to date – well worth taking a look at if you have any interest whatsoever in what happened when related to the oversight of nanotechnology and engineered nanomaterials.

It also includes hotlinks to web-based documents where they are available, making the timeline a great resource for tracking down elusive reports.

The timeline isn’t inclusive – I’m not sure capturing everything is humanly possible – but it’s pretty good.  It’s also a living document – if you have something you think should be there that isn’t, you can email in your updates.

Does the US need more public participation in assessing technologies and their potential impact on society, and informing decisions on their development and use?  Richard Sclove – author of a new report on technology assessment – thinks yes; but only as part of a new paradigm for technology assessment.  The report, published today by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Science & Technology Innovation Program, announces plans for a new Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology Network (ECAST), which would compliment expert input with participatory technology assessment to help inform decisions on developing new and emerging technologies.

I’m currently reading Robert Winston’s new book “Bad Ideas? An arresting history of our inventions” (slowly, as regular followers of 2020 Science will realize!).  Starting from the earliest indications of innovation amongst humans – from tool-making and the development of language – and ending up at the present day, he takes a hard look at what innovation has cost us over the ages, as well as what we have gained from it.  Reading it, one can’t help ask the question (as I suspect the author intended) – are we slaves to innovation, or can we control the process?

Technology Assessment in all its guises is a rejection of the former, and an attempt to embrace the latter.  It is based on the assumption that, if only we can get some insight into where a particular technology innovation is going and what the broader social and economic consequences might be, we should be able to tweak the system to increase the benefits and decrease the downsides.

As an idea, it’s an attractive one.  Having the foresight to identify potential hurdles to progress ahead of time and make decisions that help overcome them at an early stage makes sound sense.  If businesses wants to develop products that are sustainable over long periods, governments want to craft policies that have long-reaching positive consequences and citizens want to support actions that will benefit them and  their children, any intelligence on the potential benefits and pitfalls associated with a new technology is invaluable to informed decision-making.

The trouble is, making sense of a complex future where technology, social issues, politics, economics and sheer human irrationality collide, is anything but straight forward.

Back in 1972, the US Congress established the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to handle exactly this type of challenge.  For 23 years , OTA took a relatively formal and meticulous approach to assessing emerging technologies for Congress, based on expert input and analysis.  When the Office was closed in 1995, many considered it a blow to informed policy on science and technology within the US.  Ironically, as the US (along with the rest of the world) now squares up to some of the most complex science and technology-based issues and opportunities ever to face humanity, the tools that might help inform forward-looking decisions on how to navigate this technology-driven future are rather conspicuously lacking.

Into this void comes today’s report from Dr. Richard Sclove – founder and senior Fellow of the Loka Institute.  Sclove argues that we need to take a proactive role in determining the trajectory of technology for the good of society, but that a changing world demands new approaches – the OTA of 1972 (he suggests) would look conspicuously out of place in today’s fast pace, interconnected world.  Specifically, he argues that citizens need a place at the table – not instead of experts, but as a valuable voice alongside those of others in evaluating how technology-driven futures might most appropriately evolve.

Richard makes a strong case for what he terms participatory Technology Assessment – or pTA.  He argues that in a democracy, citizens should have the right to help decide how technology is developed and used; that citizens bring a range of social values to the table which are critical to determining technology trajectories and can help select potentially more sustainable ways forward; that engaging a broad base of people expands the knowledge base on which decisions are made; that citizen involvement can improve the effectiveness of decisions that are made, and help avoid costly mis-steps; and that pTA can even lead to expedited conclusions (although I am still struggling to see how asking more people for their perspectives and input can lead to a faster process).

The challenge is, how to make this work – and work in a way where citizens are fully engaged in the process of decision making, rather than just being a token presence.

Sclove quickly dismisses the option of re-instating the OTA (or a similar institutionalized body) as being outdated, unlikely to embrace pTA (the OTA did not engage citizens in technology assessment generally), and too focused on serving institutions within government rather than society as a whole.   He also challenges the suggestion that sufficient technology assessment is already carried out by a range of government offices, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Instead, an alternative is offered – an independent network of institutions that work together to carry out a combination of expert and participatory technology assessment.

The result is ECAST – the Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology Network; a proposed independent network of organizations that can facilitate and conduct technology assessments that are not only responsive to 21st century challenges, but also make full use of 21st century opportunities.

As presented in the report, ECAST is in the initial stages of formation, supported by the Woodrow Wilson  International Center for Scholars, the Boston Museum of Science, the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Science CheerLeader, and The Loka Institute.  However, there are clearly plans to expand this network.

The model as it stands is based on working through science museums (as a direct link to citizens), universities (bringing innovative ideas and research and analysis capabilities to the table) and non-partisan policy research organizations (providing policy relevance, and interfacing with decision makers).  While at an early stage of development, it clearly draws on the ideas of independence, input from experts and laypersons, and strong connections to policymakers (the report stresses the need for a physical presence in Washington DC).

Does the idea have legs?  I’m not sure yet, although I would be the first to agree that movement along these lines is desperately needed if the US is to develop strategic and sustainable technology innovation policies.  Looking to the future, it’s hard to justify letting innovation run its course without any form of intervention – if the recent economic crisis has taught us anything, it’s that.  As advances in science and technology, global communications and coupling between humanity and the environment in which we live continue to converge together, there is a social and economic imperative to help ensure technology innovation leads to long-term progress.  And assuming that everything will fall out in the wash without proactive intervention is both naive and short sighted.  The only real question is how to go about controlling the future.

I would argue strongly that, as stakeholders in the future, citizens have a right and a responsibility to be a part the process.  Richard’s proposal is definitely a significant move in this direction.  It’s not perfect – I have questions over the legitimacy of the process, sources of funding, the ability of the proposed network to make a difference, and translating academic ideals into practical reality.  Nevertheless, it’s an exciting and innovative step forward, and one that I will be following with interest.

I don’t particularly like the thought that we are slaves to innovation – I may be overly optimistic, but I would like to believe that humanity has the ability to choose future courses that are more likely to improve people’s lives.  But as our “inventions” get increasingly more sophisticated, it’s going to take more than luck and good intentions to ensure that what looks good on paper doesn’t turn out to be yet another “bad idea.” Hopefully, innovations like ECAST will help empower people to work together towards a future in which technology innovation is more likely to solve problems, than create new ones.

_______________________________________

I feel I should add a disclaimer to this post, as Richard Sclove’s report was published by an organization I was a part of until recently – the Science & Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center.  However, I was not in any way associated with the development and writing of the report, and indeed the first time I saw it was earlier today when it was publicly released.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) plans to form a new interagency group on emerging technologies, including nanotechnology and synthetic biology.  The announcement was make by Tom Kalil, deputy director for policy at OSTP, at a government-organized workshop on Risk Management Methods and Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology held last week.  The AAAS policy alert (not available on the web yet available here) noted that the group is intended to provide research funding agencies and regulatory agencies an opportunity to discuss emerging policy issues.

Unfortunately I wasn’t at the workshop in Washington DC where Kalil made his remarks, and so don’t know any more about this than was included in the brief note from AAAS.  However, from what was reported, this seems a sensible move – if carried through thoughtfully.

Nanotechnology – arguably the US government’s flagship emerging technology – has highlighted the need for smart policy decisions when developing new technologies.  What started as a science-based initiative to promote new research, stimulate innovation and create new jobs, has increasingly become entangled in the social, political and economic impacts of science and technology promotion.  Ten years after President Clinton established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) – the initiative that coordinates nanotechnology activities across federal agencies – there remains an uneasy relationship between the desire to drive science discovery and technology innovation, and the need to understand and manage the potential safety, societal and economic impacts of this push.

At the heart of this uneasy relationship is a built-in resistance to asking “un-askable” questions.

The NNI’s vision is “a future in which the ability to understand and control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry that benefits society.” The vision is built on a belief that increasing our ability to control matter at the nanoscale is essential, that this will lead to a technology revolution, and that this revolution will benefit society. This is a powerful driver, and has contributed largely to the success of the NNI specifically and nanotechnology more broadly.  But it does mean that people who ask difficult questions tend to be tarred by a brush that’s reserved for whistle blowers and inconvenient activists.

This has been seen in the slow and sometimes reluctant inclusion of research into potential health and environmental impacts under the NNI umbrella; a resistance to developing government-wide policies on developing nanotechnology responsibly (a resistance usually justified by the NNI being a science initiative, not a policy initiative); and negligible efforts to include citizens who stand to gain or loose from nanotechnology as partners in the process (see David Guston’s piece on this for instance).  There has also been a surprising lack of analysis of the broader economic impacts of nanotechnology promotion – as opposed to the economic benefits.  How many companies and economies have invested in nanotechnology simply because the US set an aggressive lead – and what has been the economic impact of this “follow the leader” mentality?

The reality is that in any initiative dedicated to promoting a given technology, people and organizations that raise issues and recommend actions that threaten to undermine this promotion risk being marginalized.  And this ends up playing into personal and agency self-interest – why give up a position of influence and the promise of funding for the sake of asking difficult questions? I can only imagine what the response to a NNI member who suggested the usefulness of the initiative should be re-examined would be – I suspect it would not be pretty!  Yet if sound and strategic policies are to be developed that benefit citizens, the “un-askable” questions are often the most important ones.

Looking forward, there is a need to develop emerging technology-related policies that are balanced by considerations other than technology promotion. alone  But on top of this, there is a need to develop more holistic approaches to emerging technologies in general.  Nanotechnology is not the only new technology on the block – technologies emerging under the banners of synthetic biology,  robotics, geoengineering, cognitive enhancement and a plethora of others are coming up fast.  Then there are the gray areas between these where convergence leads to increasingly complex and ill-defined technologies.  In the face of accelerating innovation, should policies be developed for each and every new technology that comes along?  This would be exceedingly difficult to achieve now, and an impossible task I suspect a few years down the line.

One solution – and the one the White House seems to be pursuing – is to take a high-level approach to emerging technology policy that ensures cross-agency coordination, identifies emerging hot-spots and enables a balanced and socially-responsible approach to emerging opportunities and issues.  In some ways this is a role that the long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment within the US Congress played.  But looking to an increasingly technologically-complex future, I suspect that a complete rethink of how to ensure the benefits of new technologies are realized and the dangers avoided is needed.

Depending on how it develops, the new White House interagency group could well lead to coordinated action on emerging technologies that ensures policies are responsive to the needs of citizens – not just those who have a vested interest in technology promotion.  But I can guarantee it will hit resistance from agencies, organizations and individuals who stand to loose out from this move – including those who stand to loose funding or influence as a result. of it  Yet if the US government is to embrace technology development that benefits society as a whole – especially in light of President Obama’s Innovation Strategy – it surely must create a policy forum where the “un-askable” questions can be asked; where no one interest group within the government can dominate proceedings; and where hurdles to social and economic prosperity can be identified, assessed and addressed without fear of agencies and individuals being marginalized.

Done right, this could be a critical step toward the US developing a 21st century approach to 21st century technologies.

_______________________________________

In order to ensure the new group’s effectiveness, OSTP are going to have to grapple with some tough issues.  These will include, amongst others:

Links to technology-specific initiatives. I would imagine that the new group will function best as  a complementary activity to initiatives such as the NNI.  There is clearly benefit to having strong technology-promotion initiatives like the NNI, and it would seem foolish to diminish these.  And initiatives like this are essential for intelligence on where emerging technologies are going.  Yet at the same time it is important that policy decisions are decoupled somewhat from technology promotion.  One way to do this is to ensure strong links between initiatives such as the NNI and the new group.

Agency-engagement at a senior level. To avoid yet another talking-shop, the new group will need to engage agencies at a senior level – ensuring that participants have decision-making authority.

Balance of interest. To the extent that it is possible across federal agencies, the group is more likely to be effective if there is balance between different interests – including science, business, economic growth, social development and prosperity, and oversight.

Funding. One fear of establishing a group like this is that it will undermine efforts to fund oversight and social impacts-related research through initiatives such as the NNI.  This is a serious concern, although it would be dangerous to place research funding interests within specific sectors ahead of sound policy formulation.  Nevertheless, it would be prudent to both ensure the new group does not adversely impact on current funding into the challenges and potential impacts of emerging technologies, and to develop mechanisms to support and stimulate new funding to address strategically important issues.

Stakeholder input. It is hard to imagine how the planned interagency group will function effectively without non-government stakeholder input.  In the absence of balanced input from different stakeholder groups – representatives of business, citizens and academia in particular – cross-government policies on emerging technologies are unlikely to be relevant, responsive or effective.  This will almost definitely mean setting up a Federal Advisory Committee to the group  to ensure informed and representative input.

To coincide with my move to the University of Michigan, Seed Magazine has just published a series of ten questions and answers on what I do and what motivates me as a scientist.  You can read how well I fared (or didn’t, as the case may be) with questions as diverse as “How do you explain your job at cocktail parties?” to “Why do you do science?” on the Seed Magazine website.

I was surprised to hear that Seed sometimes have to hard-sell the idea of this series to scientists – who doesn’t want to pontificate about what they are reading, or who they would most like to meet?  But I must confess, answering questions like “Why do you do science?” and “What inspires you?” was tougher than I imagined.

Previous articles in Seed’s “10 Questions” series include:

• James Kasting on the odds of finding another earth-like planet and the power of science fiction;
• Kirsten Bomblies on the immune system of plants and how young scientists can keep inspiration alive;
• John Rinn onwhy we should dumpster-dive in our genomes and the inspiration of a middle-distance runner; and
• Amy Cannon on low-energy solar cells, training scientists to weed out toxicity, and what makes benign chemistry such a good business proposition.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/04/06/cultivating-ingenuity-humility-in-an-increasingly-complex-world/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/the-uk-nanotechnologies-strategy-disappointing/ http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/the-uk-nanotechnologies-strategy-disappointing/#comments Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:59:02 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2964

Ten years ago, President Clinton laid the foundation stone of the current global Nanotechnology Initiative.  In a speech given at at Caltech, he announced the formation of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative, and set a chain of events in motion that has led to economies and businesses around the world investing in the technology of the small.  A decade on, nanotechnology is a multi-billion dollar research and development enterprise, is touted as holding the promise of reviving economies, creating jobs and solving global challenges, and is already adding to the performance and value of innumerable products.

Against this backdrop, the UK Government has just released its first a new strategy for the successful and safe development of nanotechnology – or nanotechnologies to be precise. [See update for why this isn't the first strategy]

I was interested to read the strategy, having just finished helping to review the US National Nanotechnology Initiative for the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (the PCAST review of the NNI is due to be published shortly).  The UK has had a strong presence in the nanotechnology arena for some years, combined with a pragmatic approach to technology development. So I was expectant of a strong and sensible strategy that mapped out how the country planned to be a key player in the “next industrial revolution.”

Sadly, I was disappointed.

At the risk of boring readers, I’m going to include somewhat detailed comments on the strategy below.  But here are my headline reflections:

• Successful nanotechnologies need strategic investment in science. The strategy focuses on three key areas: exploiting nanotechnology breakthroughs commercially, addressing potential health, safety and environmental impacts, and regulating the technology and its products.  However, there is no specific emphasis on exploratory science. The implicit assumption is that the machinery of knowledge generation – funding for exploratory research, and the expertise to generate new knowledge – is in place.  But this is a very rash assumption indeed.  Without strategic investment in funding exploratory nanoscale science, especially at the interface between disciplines, the UK is likely to loose out to other countries that recognize the need to drive innovation through knowledge creation.  The US and China in particular are steaming ahead here – without a clear research strategy, the UK is destined to become marginalized.
• Innovation begets innovation. While the strategy addresses the commercial exploitation of nanotechnology in general terms, it stops short of considering how innovative new approaches can be used to get innovative new technologies to market – including alternative financing models, new ways of enabling technology transfer, and overcoming institutional barriers to change.
• Risk and regulation cannot drive an effective nanotechnologies strategy. I’m a strong advocate of dealing with the potential adverse impacts of nanotechnologies.  But developing a national nanotechnologies strategy that is two thirds-focused on understanding and addressing potential risks seems a little over the top, even to me!  Strategic risk-research and responsive oversight are absolutely essential to the safe and sustained development of nanotechnology-based products and processes.  But in the broader context, they should support the overall aims of improving quality of life, stimulating economic growth and providing jobs – not be the heart and soul of the whole enterprise.
• Nanotechnologies risk research isn’t just about reassuring people that products are safe. Despite a heavy emphasis on risk and regulation, the strategy seems to reflect a somewhat naive understanding of why research into potential risks, handling uncertainty and developing responsive oversight is important.  Repeatedly, the need to reassure “the public” that the products they buy are safe is highlighted as an important driver.  But how about the need of businesses to develop and market products responsibly?  Many businesses that have a culture (or are developing one ) of placing a high priority on producing safe and responsible products are desperate for better information on how to do this with nanotech-enabled products.  Yet it’s telling that the UK strategy has no clear link between environmental, health and safety research and business, industry and innovation.
• Strategies should be built on sound data. There are a number of places in the report where the data are suspect – especially in the section dealing with business, industry and innovation.  At the least, I would expect a Government-level report to get the facts right.  For instance, it is claimed that the UK is fourth in the world in terms of the number of nanotechnology patents applied for, after the US, Japan and Germany.  Yet the latest figures – published last year – show the UK ranking 11th in terms of the number of patents filed in the country (in 2008, 68 nanotechnology patents were filed in the UK, compared to 3,729 in the US and 5,030 in China.  That’s around 0.5% of all nanotechnology patents filed in 2008).  The report also estimates “the global market in nano-enabled products is expected to grow from $2.3 bn in 2007 to $81 bn in 2015,” yet the basis for these figures is not explained (they come from a report that will set you back $6,000 if you want to read it!).  These figures seem very low – especially compared to estimates of between $1 trillion and $3 trillion from other sources for the future worth of products based in some way on nanotechnology.  In effect, the UK Government figures are meaningless without further explanation.  And if they are correct, I have to wonder why governments and industry around the world are investing tens of billions of dollars in a technology that is only going to be worth… tens of billions of dollars!
• If you are going to form a Nanotechnology Research Strategy Group, make sure their scope extends beyond just addressing risks. I have to applaud the UK strategy for listing a sensible set of nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research priorities (Appendix A of the report).  But to make these THE research priorities of the Nanotechnology Research Strategy Group – that just send a message that the UK government is only interested in potential risks.  Changing the name of the group might be a good idea!
• Resist the temptation to include past activities as strategic actions. Call me a pedant, but I do find it frustrating where a strategy includes stuff that has already been done in its list of actions.  It smacks of padding things out, rather than looking forward to what needs to be done, and how.  Actions 3.3 – 3.6, just for example, refer to activities already underway – nothing particularly strategic about that!
• Don’t confuse toxicology with risk science.  There are three action points in the report (3.14 – 3.16) specifically aimed at developing the UK’s toxicology skills base.  This is good – it should be developed.  But so should expertise in exposure assessment, risk assessment, risk management, handling uncertainty and oversight.  Sadly, the strategy seems to assume that toxicology is the be-all and end-all of risk identification, assessment and management, whereas in reality it is only one component.
• If you are going to reach out to members of the public, take it seriously. In 2009 BIS supported what is possibly the best lay source of information on nanotechnologies – Nano & Me.  But rather than praising the initiative and supporting it, the UK strategy is rather less than luke-warm.  According to the strategy, the website has completed its 5 months (5 months?!) trial period, and will now be evaluated – that’s it.  This effort needs to be run longer – much longer.  It needs to be funded better.  And it needs to be promoted by the Government, not treated like an embarrassing relative.

So all in all, not a great strategy.  It’s not all bad – there are strengths in what the UK has done and intends to do in developing safe and successful nanotechnologies.  But as a strategy, this would have been flaky five years ago, and is now positively threadbare.

In a global climate where economies are eying one another up to see who’s going to take the lead in nanotechnology, I’m afraid the strategy sends a clear message – don’t worry about us!

__________________________________________

Some more specific observations

1. In the executive summary (p4), there is no mention of supporting research in nanoscience that will lead to innovation in nanotechnologies.
2. Nanotechnologies are described as being “at a very early stage in their development” (p6).  After a ten-year global push and many previous years’ research into nanoscale science, together with a wealth of nanotech-enabled products on the market, this is a dubious statement at best.
3. I’m wondering when we will see “more compact and powerful computer systems, mobile phones and wiring systems incorporating carbon nanotubes” (p6) – unless it’s just the wiring systems that will use the nanotubes.  Very unclear.
4. I’ve already questioned the projection of the global market in nano-enabled goods as $81 bn in 2015 above.
5. Apparently, the UK also has the third highest number of nanotechnologies companies in the world.  Wow!  Which countries are leading us – the US, China, Japan, Korea, Germany perhaps?  Take your pick – although I’m not sure how you will tell if you are correct, as no source was given for the claim.
6. A tricky point in any report like this is explaining what nanotechnologies are.  I’d love to know what others thought of the explanation in Box 1 (p6), which gets close to mixing and matching nanotechnologies, nanomaterials and nanoparticles.  I was confused!
7. I’ve already addressed the question of nanotechnology patents above.  Why the report didn’t cite Dang et al. I don’t know!
8. On page 7 the report states “At present, it is thought that the greatest level of risk may be posed by nanomaterials which are in the form of free particles, such as in a powder or liquid.”  This was a conclusion of the 2005 Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineers report on nanotechnologies, and is still important.  But over the past five years, perspectives have developed and become a little more sophisticated, recognizing the need to consider how new materials might come into contact with and interact with people and the environment, rather than fixating on nanoparticles.
9. This I found interesting:  On page 9 it is stated that “Above all, it is Government’s role to protect health and the environment during the development and use of nanotechnologies.”  This possibly explains the emphasis on risk and regulation in the strategy.
10. Figure 1 in the report shows the linkages between the four different areas of the strategy.  But as mentioned above, there is no direct linkage between environmental, health and safety research, and business, industry and innovation.  I would argue that two-way links here are absolutely essential to responsible development.
11. Here’s a recurring theme in the strategy. On page 11 one challenge to the commercialization of nanotechnologies listed is “A need for industry to engage with the public in order to raise awareness of the benefits of nanotechnologies-based products, and to counter any negative perceptions or concerns” (emphasis added).  I’m sorry, this is not what public engagement is all about.  In fact, in the light of this, I’m embarrassed to have applauded the UK’s approaches to public engagement and science last week – clearly there are some communication disconnects between departments!
12. On page 15, in reading about a lack of critical mass amongst small nanotech businesses in the UK, and a lack of business leadership, I was wondering where the Nanotechnology Industry Alliance was… Surely these small businesses aren’t voiceless.
13. Page 21 lists some good research into nanotechnology environmental, health and safety issues carried out in the UK. Unless I have missed something, they are all associated with a group of researcher based in Edinburgh. Should this have been called the Scottish Nanotechnologies Strategy?
14. However, on the same page an important study into the the potential health impacts of long carbon nanotubes is credited to Ken Donaldson – Graig Poland, not Ken, was the lead author.  This sort of mistake should not occur in a report like this one!
15. I’ve already mentioned the strange name of the group established to focus on nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research above (p 22) – the Nanotechnologies Research Strategy Group.  Wonder if the UK has a shadow group looking at non-environmental, health and safety research.
16. I’ve also covered the emphasis on toxicology above, but this is so important that it’s worth mentioning again.  On page 26 the report states “A shortage of new toxicologists was identified in RCEP’s report in 2008 as a risk to the nanotechnologies field, as toxicology research is pivotal to the successful development of new materials and products.”  Looking over that RCEP report, it had a strong emphasis on toxicology which at the time was not out of place.  But the UK strategy seems to have taken one recommendation from that report and run with it, to the exclusion of every other aspect of risk identification, assessment and management.  I’m not sure what the opposite of a strategy is, but this would qualify in my books.  Strategic action towards developing safe and responsible nanotechnologies must address all aspects of risk – not just material hazard.
17. On page 27, the strategy sets out the four key areas where “nanomaterials are most likely to come into contact with humans, or the environment”: Food; Cosmetics; Healthcare devices and medicines; and Workplace health and safety.  These are all very reasonable.  But what about all the other strategic areas – products which might shed nanomaterials while being used; products that lead to inadvertent exposure; products that release nanomaterials when disposed of or recycled; products that children might chew on or ingest, and so on.  Restricting the strategy to these four areas seems, well, restrictive.
18. Following up on those medical devices and medicines, there’s no mention of the regulatory challenges presented by combination products – products that act as both a device and a medicine.  Maybe this isn’t an issue in the UK – it’s certainly one in the US.
19. When it comes to the workplace, I was intrigued to see that “there are no current plans for any specific guidance on risk management for materials other than carbon nanotubes.”  Why?  Businesses and researchers are desperate for clear guidance on working safely with nanomaterials, which is why organizations such as NIOSH, ICON and ISO have been so active in the area.  The good news is that, even if the UK government isn’t intending to provide useful information for working with nanomaterials in the immediate future, others are filling the gap.

Update, 3/18/10  When this piece was first posted, I mistakenly referred to the strategy as the UK’s first nanotechnology strategy – a perception that the report itself does nothing to dispel.  However, as Michael Kenward kindly pointed out in the comments, this is in fact the UK’s second nanotechnology strategy (as long as you don’t nit-pick over differences between “nanotechnology” and “nanotechnologies.”).  The original strategy – published in 2002 – is available here Strangely, the current strategy does not acknowledge the existence of its predecessor. [PDF, 422 KB].

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/the-uk-nanotechnologies-strategy-disappointing/feed/ 29 http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/uk-nanotech-strategy-unavailable-due-to-technical-difficulties/ http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/uk-nanotech-strategy-unavailable-due-to-technical-difficulties/#comments Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:45:23 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2959

It seems the UK government Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is having a “leaves on the track” moment this morning (a scathing cultural reference, for those of you Brits too young to remember!).  The newly-minted UK nanotechnology strategy – launched today – is unavailable… because of technical difficulties it seems.

Seems to me that if the country wants to lead the world in advanced technologies, it needs to come up to speed with existing technologies first!

I had intended reviewing the strategy today on 2020 Science.  Looks like this will have to wait.  Fortunately a friend of a friend managed to pass on a copy from the bowels of BIS, so I should be able to write about it sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, if you want to try your hand at getting a copy of the new and improved strategy, the link is http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/nano/

Good luck!

Update 3/18/10, 8:55 AM – Frank Swain has kindly uploaded a copy of the UK Nanotechnologies Strategy here [PDF, 2.4 MB]

Update 3/18/10, 9:05 AM – Looks like the BIS website is now up and running again.  Review coming later today…

Update 3/18/10 2:20 PM – review of strategy now posted here.

I was at a meeting a couple of weeks ago where engaging the public (or “publics” to be more accurate) in science came up.  In the course of discussions, I mentioned an initiative by Research Councils UK to involve members of the public in developing a call for research proposals on the use of nanotechnology in healthcare. To which one eminent US scientist responded with words to the effect of “that sounds like a really bad idea!”

The exchange confirmed a suspicion I have had for some time that public engagement on science isn’t taken that seriously in the US.  Sure, there’s lots going on at various levels to communicate science to the US public, and to make sure people put science “in its rightful place” in their lives – which to most scientists is somewhere above God and family.  But strategic and coordinated action on engaging people – entering into a two-way exchange of ideas that potentially influences both sides – that’s much harder to find.

So I was fascinated by a series of documents that landed on my virtual desk this morning from the UK that outline Britain’s approach to public engagement on science – including why anyone would want to do it in he first place!

The documents are from Research Councils UK (RCUK) – a strategic partnership between the seven UK Research Councils that enables them to work together synergistically on key issues.  The documents set out RCUK’s strategy for public engagement with research, provide a guide to researchers and teachers  on engaging young people with cutting edge research, and outline the benefits of public engagement for researchers.

The three documents map out a clear rationale for why public engagement on science is important, and how the UK intends to pursue it.  Take this for instance from the updated Public Engagement with Research strategy [PDF, 80 KB]:

“If we involve and listen to the public (and encourage our research communities to do so) then our decisions and research will be informed by their views, and therefore more likely to have enhanced impact in return for the investment.

Similarly, if we talk with the public (and encourage our research communities to talk to the public) about the outputs of our research and their implications and applications then society will share in the benefits of that knowledge, whether for their health, wealth or culture, and therefore helping to maximise the impact of that research.

And if we encourage researchers to interact with schools to enrich students’ experiences then we can help improve the supply of skilled people to the research base and the UK economy and encourage more to act as informed citizens.”

There follows a detailed strategic plan for recognizing and responding to public views, inspiring young people and supporting researchers.

The second of the three documents takes on interactions between young people and research.  Titled “Engaging Young People with Cutting Edge Research: a guide for researchers and teachers” [PDF, 900 KB], it provides clearly laid out information for researchers and teachers, together with resources for both groups.  The guide doesn’t hedge – headlining the section for researchers [the first section in the guide] is the question

“Working with schools and young people – how can it benefit me as a researcher?”

This is a hundred and eighty degree departure – and a very welcome one – from old-school approaches, which inevitably asked what young people can get out of science.  Here’s a quick summary – from the report – of what researchers might expect to gain from working with young people:

The third report builds on this theme by addressing the broader benefits of public engagement to researchers.  In the rather aptly titled “What’s in it for me? The benefits of public engagement for researchers” [PDF, 1000 KB] RCUK examine four benefits to researchers of engaging with the public through the eyes of researchers themselves.  In a series of case studies, the document coniders career inspiration, raising your profile, developing skills and enhancing your research.

It’s that last point that particularly grabbed my attention when reading through the document, as it gets back to the heart of response I found from that US researcher to the idea of the “public” actually having an influence on research.

This section of the report consists of twelve accounts where researchers have benefited from engaging with people a long way removed from the lab.  They span medical research to environmental research to astronomy.  And the unifying factor – research that is enriched and better-informed by talking with and listening to others.  Take this quote from Dr David Chadwick for instance from North Wyke Research. Talking about engaging people as part of his work studying how the management of livestock and their manures affect water quality, David said

“It vastly changed networking opportunities, bringing different experts together, and has been the most enjoyable project in my career to date”

Or this from Dr Paul Curzon at the University of London on engaging with the public on research into topics related to human error:

“The data obtained from this was used in a publication which won a best paper prize, and has opened up a novel research methodology.”

The accounts are anecdotal.  But nevertheless they attest to the power of opening up research to people who are affected by it, interested in it and have something to offer to it – given half the chance.

The UK has been bitten by the failures to engage people on science effectively in the past, and is learning rapidly from past mistakes.  The result is a strong strategy that changes the dynamic between researchers and the public; gives more people than ever before the opportunity to be active partners in science rather than passive observers; and adds considerable value to research and innovation.  Rather than retreating into the attitude of “that sounds like a really bad idea,” Britain is developing a “technology ratchet” that could give it a valuable edge over the coming years.

As a Brit, that gives me a sense of pride in the country – we seem to have got this one right, or at least seem to be on the right path.  But as a Brit living in the US, I can’t help thinking “what on earth has gone wrong on this side of the Atlantic?”  Why is is that, while the UK is developing strategies to make more people an integral part of the science endeavor, the US is still plagued by an attitude that the public should be seen and not heard.

I suspect it’s because the momentum of the vast US science and technology enterprise has carried it forward despite a growing need to rethink the relationship between science and society.  But that momentum won’t last for ever.  And when it runs out, how will the US go about getting science back on track?

I don’t know the answer to that one.  But at least they will have an excellent role model a mere pond-hop away come the crunch

It’s a week for significant science reports.  Following hot on the heels of the UK Expert Group on Science and Trust’s report on Monday comes what could well be a seminal work on science in 21st century Britain from the Royal Society.  In “The scientific century: securing our future prosperity” a distinguished panel of experts takes on Britain’s role in the knowledge economy, and lays out a strong set of recommendations and actions to underpin the country’s leadership in science and technology.

This is far too important and weighty a document to summarize and review after only a brief reading.  So at this point I will content myself with simply laying out the key recommendations.  I would however encourage anyone with the slightest interest in science’s role in the 21st century – whether from Britain or elsewhere – to read this report closely and take its recommendations seriously.  It’s possibly the most significant assessment of how to develop coherent, responsive and sustainable science policies since the US National Academies published “Rising above the gathering Storm” in 2007.

Recommendation1: Put science and innovation at the heart of a strategy for long-term economic growth

• Create a new long-term framework for science and innovation committing to increased expenditure
• Outline spending plans over a 15 year period (2011 – 2026)
• Prioritise investment in scientific capital – including infrastructure and skills
• Expand the R&D Tax Credit

Recommendation 2: Prioritise investment in excellent people

• Direct a greater proportion of Research Council funding to investigator-led research
• Increase the length and quality of UK PhD training
• Support transferable skills training for researchers
• increase the number of postdoctoral fellowships

Recommendation 3: Strengthen Government’s use of science

• Review strategic science spending by Government departments
• Expand the Small Business Research Initiative to support innovative procurement
• Provide Department Chief Scientific Advisers with greater resources
• Appoint a Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Treasury

Recommendation 4:  Reinforce the UK’s position as a hub for global science and innovation

• Extend the geographic reach  of the UK Science and Innovation Network
• Increase support for mechanisms, such as the Science Bridges scheme, which link UK research groups with partners overseas
• Incentivise more of the world’s best scientists to remain in, or relocate to, the UK
• improve visa conditions for visiting scientists and researchers to the UK

Recommendation 5: Better align science and innovation with global challenges

• Create strong global challenge research programmes, led by RCUK, to align scientific, commercial and public interests
• Reform research funding and assessment to support and reward interdisciplinary research
• Use public and stakeholder dialogue ti help identify and shape these challenges
• Ringfence departmental contributions to priority research areas

Recommendation 6:  Revitalise science and mathematics education

• Provide incentives to recruit, retain and attract teachers back to science subjects
• Commit to increasing the numbers of primary teachers with science expertise
• Establish new expert groups to advise on the development of  science and mathematics  curricula and qualifications

One final word:  The figures used in the report are well worth checking out – they are a model in presenting complex information in a compelling way.

The report “The scientific century: securing our future prosperity” can be downloaded from http://royalsociety.org/the-scientific-century/

A new report released today from the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Expert Group on Science and Trust emphasizes the need to address risk and uncertainty in developing and using science and technology within society.  “Acknowledging risk and uncertainty” is the second of eight broad aspirations from the independent group, established to develop a UK action plan to “enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “license to operate” is socially robust.”

The report “Starting a National Conversation about Good Science” [PDF, 478 KB] is a rich, informative and insightful document, that demands careful consideration.  It comes out of a group assembled to consider new mechanisms to increase public trust in science and engineering; review the impact of the existing science-related ethical code of practice; examine how movement of knowledge and people across the different sectors can be facilitated in order to maximize the benefits and impacts of science and society activities; and think about better ways to evaluate the impacts of science and society initiatives.  Despite this being a purely British affair, many of the recommendations are relevant far beyond the confines of a UK-centered “national conversation,”  and will hopefully stimulate a global dialogue on what is a global challenge.

Amidst the eight “broad aspirations” of the group, which span public judgment about science and awareness of the scientific process, to underpinning science-informed decision-making and good science governance, I was particularly struck by an emphasis on risk and uncertainty.  This may be because in a few weeks I will becoming increasingly involved in risk, uncertainty and science-informed decision-making, as I take over as Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan.  But beyond this, I was struck by the group’s recognition that, from the publics’ various perspectives, uncertainties surrounding science and technology – their implications in particular – are often more important than the science and technology themselves.

The overarching aim of the Science and Trust Expert Group -  and of this report – was

“To enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “licence to operate” is socially robust.”

In this context,the group recommended that

“Expert advice to Government should identify and characterize uncertainties; policy makers should communicate clearly actions that take account of inevitable uncertainties; efforts should be made to support public judgements about risks and uncertainties.”

In particular, the report emphasizes the need to address uncertainties surrounding the potential impacts and benefits of emerging technologies “in the wider context of science and society relations.”

This emphasis on uncertainty is particularly welcome, and closely aligns with where I hope to be taking the University of Michigan Risk Science Center over the next few years.  New technologies – or innovative ways of using existing technologies for that matter – lead to inherently uncertain futures.  There is a great danger of mistaking this uncertainty for risk (risk is a reasonably well-understood chance of something bad happening; uncertainty is a poor understanding of whether good or bad will come out of a course of action) – with the result that there is a tendency to shy away from potentially beneficial technologies, simply because we don’t know how they are going to unfold.  On the other hand, uncertainty means that we do need to move forward carefully, in case there are very real and relevant risks lurking in the shadows.  The trick is to develop better ways of handling uncertainty so that the best possible choices are made.

Being up-front about uncertainty and potential risks associated with science and technology is a critical step toward developing conversations and actions that underpin a science-informed approach to minimizing and otherwise handling uncertainty and risk.  One particularly good resource that the report recommends is A Worriers’s Guide to Risk [PDF, 222 KB] – a one-pager intended to help everyone make more sense of the seemingly unending series of stories on risk.

In its specific recommendations and actions, the Science and Trust Expert Group includes:

• Support Government to take better account of risks and uncertainties in policy making;
• Support public judgements about risks and uncertainties inherent in the scientific advisory process;
• Support policy makers to take better account of public attitudes and values to the risks, benefits and uncertainties in the governance of emerging technologies;
• Enable wider discussions in the media and elsewhere on uncertainty inherent in the scientific process; and
• Enable greater discussion of risk.

Although these are aimed fair and square at the UK, they provide a valuable template for a global conversation about good science, and its role within society.  Hopefully, now that the UK has set the pace, we will see this develop as an International conversation about good science.

A lot of things keep me up at night – everything from the trivial (“did I remember to brush my teeth?”) to the to the profound (“does it matter?” ).  But recently, I’ve been plagued more than usual in the wee small hours by the challenge of developing sustainable and resilient technologies.

Blame it on reading about too many fictional futures where post-apocalyptic dystopias dominate, but I do worry about how to ensure a secure future that depends on highly complex and specialized technologies.

Here’s my problem:  Technologies – or rather, the understanding and skills to use specific technologies – can just as easily be lost as gained.  Just because we as a global society can do something clever now, doesn’t mean that people 10, 20, 50 years down the line will still be able to do it.  Securing and maintaining technological advances requires effort – take our eyes off the ball, and the technology innovation-equivalent of entropy begins to eat away at progress.  And the more dependent we become on complex technologies, the more effort it seems we need to expend to support this dependency.

Which all makes me wonder: Are we are destined to hit a point where our global intellectual capacity is so taken up with maintaining the technological status quo, that we will loose the capacity for further technological innovation?  Or even worse; are we heading for a technology innovation impasse ends up degenerating into an uncertain and unenlightened future?

I have to say, I’m not an optimist here – that is, unless we learn how to build effective technology ratchets.

A mechanical ratchet, as everyone knows, is a device that allows movement in one direction only. By comparison, a technology ratchet can be considered as something that allows technology development to move forward, but prevents or inhibits it from moving backward.  The idea is to find ways to hold onto ground gained through technology innovation, without having to constantly expend huge amounts of effort in doing so.

This is a significant challenge.  Up until the point that we started using our heads and creating our own destiny, the progress of humans – and our evolutionary precursors – was underpinned by a rather robust biological ratchet: evolution.  Evolution is a well-honed ratchet mechanisms that ensures the successes of one generation are passed on to the next though random mutation and natural selection. In effect, progress is hard-wired into an organism’s genetic code, meaning that each subsequent generation is spared the hassle of learning the rules of survival from scratch.  But when we humans started to think for ourselves, we left this biological ratchet behind, leaving us dependent on “soft-wired” technologies that each new generation needs to be taught.

Fortunately, we’ve managed to develop some technology ratchets that have made the process of transferring knowledge from one generation to the next a little easier.  Skills like making fire, using wheels and growing crops have propagated successfully from generation to generation for thousands of years, so we must be doing something right.  But how effective are these ratchets, and are they up to the task of sustaining technology innovation in the 21st century?  The history of technology development has been “lumpy” to say the least – as civilizations have come and gone, technological ground has been lost as well as gained – suggesting that the technology ratchets of the past might be a little creaky, to say the least.

Living in what is probably the most technologically advanced and technology-dependent age of humanity to date, I’m not sure we can rely fully on old and worn technology ratchets – if we are to prevent a precarious technology-dependent society collapsing like a pack of cards at the slightest provocation, we need to proactively develop effective technology ratchets that underpin sustainable and resilient progress.

So what sort of technology ratchets should we be building?  Here are four ideas for starters:

Open-access knowledge-repositories. These used to be called libraries!  Whether stored on paper, digitally, or within cultural and social memories, widespread access to resilient and durable knowledge-bases is an important technology ratchet.  Where knowledge is privileged, easily corrupted, or temporal, it becomes increasingly hard to ensure its endurance across generations.  Ironically, while we now have access to more information than ever before, the resilience and accessibility of the “knowledge” associated within this information is by no means certain.

Skills transfer mechanisms. I was tempted to say “education” here, but what most people consider as education is part of a broader technology ratchet that ensures the skills of one generation are passed on to successive ones.  This includes knowledge transfer.  But it also includes the ability to use this knowledge.  Skills transfer mechanisms will depend on formal education – including “book-learning” and-on-the job training.  But they will also depend on learning in less formal situations – skills passed on by parents and peers, or through social interactions.  I suspect sustainable technology innovation will require more people to acquire and pass on more skills than ever before in order to succeed – and we are going to have to find new ways to achieve this.

Redundancy. Biology works so well because it has built-in redundancy.  The same information is carried by billions of cells, and there are often multiple pathways to achieving the same end.  The result is incredible resilience – throw a curve-ball at biology, and it adjusts and adapts.  It’s something that we could learn from in ensuring resilient technology innovation – redundancy as another technology ratchet.  It’s somewhat counter-intuitive, but developing multiple technology approaches to the same end lessens the chances of loosing critical knowledge and skills.  The way technology innovation currently works, redundancy often falls by the wayside (think technology monopolies for instance).  I suspect we will need to find ways to  overcome this in developing resilient and sustainable technology solutions in the future.

Cultural integration of science and technology. How can technologies be sustained in a society where those dependent on the technology haven’t the first idea of how it works – or what to do if it goes wrong?  When everything is going okay, the current model is one that works well.  But its a model with very little resilience – meaning that when things go wrong (as they are sure to do), things quickly degenerate into a mess.  The alternative is to embed an understanding and appreciation of technology – and the underlying science – within society itself.  Cultural integration of science and technology  provides an effective technology ratchet for preventing slippage in the face of new challenges.  As well as facilitating the passing-on of knowledge and skills across generations, it disperses understanding throughout society and enables informed decision-making in the face of emerging issues.  Unfortunately, many of today’s cultures do not respect science and technology to the degree that is necessary for this technology ratchet to be effective.

Astute readers might spot that these are not new ideas.  But framing them in the context of technology ratchets possibly is.  And maybe – just maybe – by framing them in this way, new light will be shed on how to use them to underpin sustainable and resilient technological progress.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that all this talk of technology ratchets is the product of chronic insomnia, and I ought to stick to safer ground in the early hours – like teeth, for instance.

But I suspect that there’s mileage in the concept.  It seems painfully inefficient to have to support each advance in technology with a sustained and long-term effort to maintain the advance – not to say precarious.  Wouldn’t it be better to develop more effective ways for each generation to lay a solid technological foundation for the following generation to build on – one that isn’t high maintenance?

That, to me, sounds like a technology ratchet.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/03/07/why-we-need-technology-ratchets/feed/ 16 http://2020science.org/2010/02/18/us-government-kicks-nanotechnology-safety-research-up-a-gear/ http://2020science.org/2010/02/18/us-government-kicks-nanotechnology-safety-research-up-a-gear/#comments Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:04:44 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2912

It looks like the US is heading for some serious action on addressing the safe development and use of nanotechnology-enabled materials, products and processes in 2011.  Reading through the just-released National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) Supplement to the President’s 2011 budget [PDF, 1.2 MB], there are some noteworthy inclusions:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting $15 million in 2011 to address nanotechnology environment, safety and health issues.  This is the first time that the agency has been listed in the NNI budget supplement as requesting nanotechnology-specific funding.  Previously hobbled in its approach to supporting the responsible development of nanotechnology because of a lack of funding, this should go a long way to help the agency get on top of critical oversight-related questions.  The requested funds will support laboratory and product testing capacity, scientific staff development and training, and collaborative and interdisciplinary research to address product characterization and safety.
• The US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) also joins the FDA in being part of the NNI budget cross-cut for the first time since the NNI was formed.  For 2011, the CPSC is requesting a much-needed $2.2 million to allow it to participate with other agencies in researching safety aspects of nanomaterials use in consumer products.  Planned work includes developing protocols to assess the potential release of airborne nanoparticles from various consumer products and to determine their contributions to human exposure; determining whether nanomaterials can be used for performance improvement in sports safety equipment such as helmets and kneepads without creating other health hazards; and expanding consumer product testing using scientifically credible protocols to evaluate the exposure potential from nanosilver in consumer products, with special emphasis on exposures to young children.
• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is requesting $16.5 million for nanotechnology safety research in 2011; over 5 times more than the agency’s 2006 nanotech budget, and $7 million above the estimated 2010 budget.  NIOSH has been leading the charge on developing safe workplace practices for handling engineered nanomaterials in recent years – and all on a shoestring budget.  This significant increase in funding should help the agency address critical research needs it been struggling to cover adequately, including much needed work on exposure measurement and characterization.
• The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) budget for nanotechnology safety research is set to double, going from an estimated $3.6 million in 2010 to a requested $7.3 million in 2011.  The agency will target its nanotechnology safety program to measuring the dynamic physico-chemical and toxicological properties of key nanomaterials and the release of these nanomaterials during manufacturing processes and from products throughout full product life cycles.

When requests from other agencies are included, the 2011 budget request for targeted nanotechnology safety research across the federal government for 2011 comes to $116.9 million – three times the amount invested in 2006.

This is an extremely welcome move, and demonstrates that the US government is committed to investing in research that will underpin the development of responsible nanotechnology.

Back in 2006, I estimated that the US government needed to invest at least $106 million per year in research addressing short term nanotechnology safety issues.  More recently in 2008, I set out funding options for addressing critical nanotechnology safety needs – arguing that between $20 million and $100 million per year should be invested over and above existing funding at the time (around $60 million per year).  While I can’t take credit for the apparent convergence between recommendations and budget requests here, it is gratifying to see agency-wide investment come closer to what has been suggested is needed in order to make headway in underpinning responsible nanotechnology.

Interestingly, budget requests for five key agencies align reasonably closely with those 2008 recommendations.

EPA, NIH (specifically, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences) and NIOSH requests are not too far from what I estimated as a compromise research investment option that lay somewhere between the minimum and the ideal.  What is particularly encouraging though is the requests for NIST and FDA, which far exceed these estimated budgets.

Of course, these requests only tell half the story.  The other half concerns how the funds are spent, and whether they will enable significant progress to be made towards developing responsible uses of nanotechnology.  In the past, the NNI has been criticized for not having a robust nanotechnology safety research strategy and for being weak on supporting targeted safety research within mission-driven agencies.  While the jury is still out on the strategy, there is no doubt that the 2011 marks a significant shift towards supporting safety research within mission-driven agencies.  In 2006, 21% of the nanotechnology environment, safety and health federal research budget was associated with EPA, NIOSH and NIST. for instance  In 2011, that figure is projected to rise to 37%.

We’re not out of the woods yet on ensuring we have the information needed to develop and use new nanotechnology-based materials and products safely.  But it looks like the US is making progress.  And that’s good news for anyone hoping to see the emergence of strong nanotechnology-based solutions to a whole host of challenges.

Well, I’ve survived my first “Davos” and lived to tell the tale.  I feel I should write about how profoundly important and influential these meetings are (and without a doubt, they are).  But it’s two o’clock in the morning, and I wanted to wrap up this blog series with a minimum of effort before hitting the sack.  So instead, here’s a quick overview of how “my Davos” went (as the phrase goes):

Anticipation: Without a doubt, this was the most anticipated meeting of the last few years for me.  The WEF Annual Meeting at Davos is the stuff of myth – the place where you can rub shoulders with the likes of Bono and Angelina Jolie, where political sparring partners hash out deals, where you can find yourself chatting to presidents and prime ministers – and not know it ’till half way through the conversation, and where chance encounters in the gents can lead to new deals.  I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to being a little excited to have been invited.

Confusion: All first-timers said the same thing to me when asked – working out what’s going on and where is a monumental task when you get here.  It’s not that WEF runs a poor show – quite the contrary, this meeting runs with Swiss precision.  But the combination of geography, snow, security, and multiple meeting tracks – not all of them publicized – is a little overwhelming.  I commented to a colleague in WEF on the third day here that I constantly had the feeling that there was a party going on somewhere I hadn’t been invited to.  he responded that there are probably at least five parties, not just one – that’s what it’s like until you begin to find your feet.

Cynicism: By the second day, I was beginning to wonder whether there was anything more to this meeting than bagging names to drop, finding backers for business deals, and partying.  In all the apparent confusion and chaos, it was hard to see anything of worth going on.  The WEF tag line is “Committed to improving the state of the world.”  They certainly seemed committed to meetings – lots of them.  But was there any real substance here?

Admiration. As I began to get the measure of the meeting though, it’s true worth began to shine through.  There are a lot of intangibles here – benefits that are very real, but hard to quantify.  It slowly began to dawn on me that there’s a lot less hot air here than it at first seemed.  Davos creates something of a safe environment where people can relax and get down to business without being burdened by too much posturing.  It’s also a great leveler. The assumption is that everyone here has something of value to bring to the meeting, and so is worth talking to.  A number of times I found myself talking to seemingly ordinary people, just to discover how extraordinary they were.  Not just the prominent public figures either  – this place is teeming with smart, inspirational people most readers probably wouldn’t know from Adam.  And everyone is eager to talk – I’ve never been to a more sociable meeting.  Sit down anywhere and the chances are that the person next to you will introduce themselves and strike up a conversation.  I thought at first it was because people were desperate to network.  But it’s more than that – somehow, Davos seems to remove the inhibition that usually stops complete strangers from talking about anything and everything under the sun.  When you get used to it, it’s incredibly invigorating.

Awe. And finally, I ended the meeting on a note of something approaching awe.  In amongst the business and political leaders at Davos, WEF – under the direction of the organization’s Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab – brings in a huge variety of other people.  The key here is that people are invited to the meeting who have the potential to make a difference, whether they are thought-leaders, activists, social entrepreneurs, whatever.  The bar for admission isn’t who you are, but what you can do.  This makes for an incredibly rich and diverse group of people.  But on top of this, the meeting celebrates potential, not status.  And to see this, you just need to look at the closing session of the meeting this year.  At the end of a meeting attended by some of the world’s most influential leaders, who did Klaus Schwab choose close with?  Six young “Global Change Makers” – each under 20 (the youngest was 16), and committed to making social change happen.  This is the point I think that I realized how special this meeting is.  In one of the most prominent sessions of the meeting, Klaus invited these six kids to talk about how they see the world, and how their outlook can inspire others to rethink and rediscover their values.  I was genuinely moved – not something that usually happens to me at events like this!  More than anything else, this closing session demonstrated that Davos is not about celebrities or power mongers or networking or having fun – it’s about inspiring people to change the world for the better.

Of course, there’s a lot that’s frustrating about the meeting as well – it isn’t perfect by a long way. But its potential to enable things to happen is real, and it is unique.

So all in all a very worth while trip.  I just need to start working on my invitation for next year now!

________________________________________

For more information on the “Global Change Makers” check out their web page, and their YouTube channel.  The closing session at Davos featuring them can be seen here – but you need to fast forward past the first 60 minutes of the video.  I’d encourage you to do it though – these kids are inspiring.  I should add a warning that the session included the Archbishop of Cantebury, who tended to get a little preachy at times.  But don’t let that deter you.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/01/31/davos-2010-wrapup-inspired-by-youth/feed/ 5 http://2020science.org/2010/01/29/technology-innovation-davos/ http://2020science.org/2010/01/29/technology-innovation-davos/#comments Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:32:04 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2850

There’s been something of a theme running through my day at The World Economic Forum Meeting in Davos today – getting from A to B.  The “A” in this case is technology innovation, and the “B” the problems we hope it will solve – the big ones like world hunger and disease, as well as some of the smaller ones like making life a little easier and more comfortable for ourselves.  But rather than write directly about the challenge of translating technology innovation into action, I thought I would give you a sense of how things work here – at least in the outer layers of the Davos onion I’m privileged to inhabit – using getting from A to B as an example.

Having skipped the early sessions I got to the Convention Center in Davos mid-morning, to find a message from a BBC World Service reporter waiting for me. After homing in on each other across a crowded floor using the time honored mobile phone “can you see me yet…” method, it transpired he was interested in a few words on a few word on emerging economies and emerging technologies – in particular on how countries like India and China are doing compared to the US.  We did a quick interview there and then, in which I said precisely nothing of note – for which I was kicking myself afterward.  Not because I failed to say all the smart things I could have said about emerging economies (being somewhat dazed and jetlagged, I forgot that I actually knew some interesting stuff here until after the interview), but because today’s the day I’ve been focusing on a new proposal to address global issues surrounding emerging technologies; and I failed completely and utterly to get this into the conversation.  My media gurus would have been in tears had they been there.

So the day started with an opportunity – sadly blown.  Following shortly after this I met with a senior representative from a petrochemicals company – he was interested in talking about technology innovations strategies for the company.  Fortunately, having woken up a bit at this point, I was able to talk about the work we’re doing in the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Councils on our new emerging technologies proposal – which is designed precisely to help companies, governments, and other groups and institutions get from A to B more effectively when it comes to technology innovation.  So far, one opportunity lost, one grasped.

But the big event of the day was a Global Redesign Initiative ideasLab, where I had the opportunity to present the “big idea” to a bunch of folk who, in principle, would help hone it to perfection.  It was a format I’m not terrifically comfortable with – timed comments addressing five specific questions.  As the proposal coming out of the Global Agenda Council I work with was somewhat complex, I resorted to scripting my comments – it kills the spontaneity, but it’s the only way I know to prevent me launching into a 20 minute lecture, or spouting pure drivel (or both, simultaneously).  The presentation went okay – not brilliant, but adequate.  But then came the quickfire questions, which were supposedly to prime the following 30 minutes of discussion.  To my horror, the challenge of connecting tech innovation to social need – so clear to me – was brought into questioned by my listeners.  The message they left me with was that innovation works very well thank you very much, and who wants a cumbersome global center helping people get from A to B anyway?

Had I misjudged things that badly?

There was worse to come though.  After six five-minute presentations, the group of about 30 people broke into six discussion groups – one for each idea.  Now you know that feeling when you’re the unpopular kid and teams are being picked?  That was me.  I had no-one interested in talking about making technology innovation work.  Not a single soul.  Clearly emerging technology is the unpopular kid on the block when it comes to meetings of senior decision makers.  That, or there was something else no one was telling me about…

I’m pretty sure the lack of interest stemmed from a number of things – a fear of the unfamiliar, blind faith in tech innovation to solve problems as and when they arise, and a certain degree of masking of the difficulties of getting form A to B by retrospective success stories (masking being where a technology inadvertently solves a problem no-one has heard of, and is heralded as a great success – I’m being a tad facetious, but you get the point).

I had the chance to test these suspicions out in the following session – a panel discussion on rethinking how to feed the world, with a highly distinguished group of people.  Luckily, the discussion turned to the role of technology innovation in agriculture and food early on, and at the first opportunity I got my question in: “we talk a lot about the problems we face, and about new innovations, but how do we most effectively get from A to B?”

Bill Gates took up the challenge, and spoke about a very neat use of of synthetic biology (or something approaching it) to create drought and flood-resistant rice plants.  It’s a great example of how innovation has helped create a better product.  But it didn’t answer the question – which was how can we do better than we are doing.  Bill actually answered very intelligently.  But at the same time he seemed to confirm my fear that our success stories so often detract from where we are not doing well, and need to do better.  Especially where they lead to complacency.  (Here I should be very clear that, while Bill Gates confirmed my growing fears that getting people to see the A to B problem is a major challenge in itself, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is doing a tremendous amount to support the innovation side of the equation.)

I was a little more heartened by Ellen Kullman, CEO of DuPont, who circled back to the question later on.  She touched on the problem of finding workable solutions to developing more effective food supplies, acknowledging that you need tech innovation and ways to make it work.  The example she cited was DuPont’s approach to working with local farming communities in Africa, so there is local “ownership” of the innovation.

Maybe I wasn’t as off-track as I was beginning to fear.

The day ended with a private dinner of World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council members.  I sat next to three prominent thought-leaders – a neurologist, an economist and a priest.  And I took the opportunity to burden them with my A to B problem.  Not only did they take me seriously, but we had an excellent discussion about where the ideas behind the proposal made sense, where perhaps they didn’t.  The economist was worried about constraining innovation by trying to match it to needs.  The neurologist on the other hand feared that the process of innovation isn’t driven by social need – so there is a real danger of solving challenges that aren’t problems, while leaving the ones that are untouched.  I forget what the priest said – at some point the conversation got on to the far more entertaining topic of religious jokes.

At the end of the day, maybe I hadn’t convinced someone with deep pockets and influence that the A to B problem is of utmost importance.  But I had had a string of unique opportunities to test the concept out, to refine my own thoughts and ideas, and to develop links that will be of lasting value.  And this more than anything is what Davos is about perhaps – grasping opportunities, making connections, being exposed to new ideas and having your own challenged.

I still believe that we have a real problem on our hands in working out how to get from A to B in translating technology innovation into socially responsive action.  But I now have a far better sense of where the possible solutions lie, and how to help people see not only the challenge, but the possible ways forward.

All in all, not a bad day.

Having just got back to the hotel at some unseemly hour (at least according to my body clock) from the first full day of meetings at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, I’m trying my best to be disciplined and write some of my impressions up.  As it’s late, I’ll be brief:

Scenery: Stunning (I’ll try for some photos later in the week).

Security: High.

Meeting: Steep learning curve to work out where everything is, never mind how to get to where I’m supposed to be

People: Surprisingly normal (apart from a tendency to spontaneously “network” – my theory is they have no idea whether who they are speaking to is someone important or a nobody, so they hedge their bets and go with the former.  Pity them when they encounter me!)

Celebs: Was too busy to to notice.  Okay so I did pass Bill Clinton in the corridor, almost had the chance to talk to Margaret Atwood, and shook Lang Lang’s hand.  But that’s all…

Sessions: Stimulating.  Interesting session with folks fro MIT on intelligence – a lot to assimilate there (must confess to being shocked at the idea of using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation – TMS – on kids.  Need to think more about this).  Sarkozy was riveting, whether you agree with him or not.  Dinner with Technology Review’s Jason Pontin was thought provoking and entertaining.  What was particularly interesting was that while the dinner was focused on technology breakthroughs, the discussion gravitated rapidly to talking about broader social, ethical and political issues.  I didn’t even have to prompt them!

And the mitts? Jason asked me to entertain to dinner and I took him literally, illustrating that the gloves are off when it comes to engineering matter at the atomic scale.   The point being that we now have far greater dexterity than ever before in how we engineer matter at the nanometer scale, and this is helping us to make things that work better.  Not too many people complained about the theatrics

More tomorrow, if I can stand the pace.

I‘m sitting here at Dulles Airport waiting for my flight to Zurich and the annual World Economic Forum Meeting in Davos, so I thought I’d dash off a quick blog.  If you’re on the ball, you will realize that by arriving tomorrow, I will be missing most of the first day of the meeting.  This is intentional – I’m doing Davos on a budget (which is why I am also flying on frequent flier miles – but more of that later in the week possibly.  In the meantime, I’m crossing my fingers that they don’t place me in the dreaded toilet seat!).

In preparation, I’ve spent the day pulling my talking points together.  I’m supposed to be speaking at four events, in addition to sampling the delights of the rest of the meeting.

To kick off, I’m talking about science and technology breakthroughs at a dinner hosted by Jason Pontin – Editor in Chief of Technology Review.  With my usual impeccable timing, this is in the evening of the day I arrive, so it’s touch and go whether I will actually be awake and coherent when speaking.  Always a sucker for cheap theatrics, this is where I will be using a just-purchased pair of faux sheepskin mittens for visual impact (at least that’s the intention, as long as I can get them on.  A last minute purchase, I had to settle for a rather narrow pair of woman’s mitts).

Thursday I’m talking emerging technologies and climate change management/mitigation with a bunch of industry leaders.  Again it’s a dinner event, so the chances of me eating a square meal that evening are slim.  The main aim here is to finish in time to hear James Cameron talking about Avatar later that evening.

Friday I’m pitching an idea for a new global center on emerging technologies intelligence, as part of the Davos IdeasLab series.  Should be interesting – I have five minutes to pitch the idea to a group of folk, against a backdrop of five text-less timed Powerpoint slides.  It’s a bit like a sudden death presentation…

Saturday I’m a free agent – unless someone finds out, in which case I could well find myself dragged into something at the last minute.

Sunday I join what looks like scores of presenters in a large brainstorming session on the “Global Agenda 2010″ – not sure what to expect here.

Then it’s party time, before heading back next Monday – again hoping that I avoid that seat especially reserved for frequent flier users and other undesirables.

That’s it for now.  See you on the other side of the Atlantic.

This week I’m heading out to the World Economic Forum jamboree in Davos, Switzerland.  I’d like to play this cool – as if rubbing shoulders with politicians, business leaders and celebs is something I do all the time.  But the reality is that this is my first time to what is probably the biggest annual gathering of world thought-leaders and decision-makers, and I’m just a little star-struck!

The World Economic Forum has been gathering world leaders together to address emerging challenges and opportunities in an informal and intimate setting for four decades now – this year’s Annual Meeting is the fortieth.  It’s a unique forum, where political and business leaders rub shoulders with academics, activists and celebrities as they get a handle on the major issues facing society around the world.  This is one of the few places where you run the chance of bumping into people like Bono, Bill Gates and Al Gore as you get your morning coffee.

Held in the Swiss Ski resort of Davos, a mix of formal, informal and private meetings brings a diverse group of people together to not only discuss the issues facing the world, but to craft workable solutions.  In the 2500 people at this year’s meeting, there will over 900 chief executives from a wide range of business sectors, government representatives from the world’s top 25 economies and fast-growing small countries (including heads of state and government), civil society leaders, academics, thought-leaders and media representatives.

Within this rather eclectic mix, I will be talking to people about emerging technologies, and their place in 21st century global society.  It’s an area that fits glove-in-hand with this year’s theme – “Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild” – but is often overlooked in the social, economic and policy debates.  There’s a tendency to simply assume that science and technology will come up with solutions to pressing problems – my job is to disabuse people of this fancy, and get some concerted action on how we are going to actively ensure science and technology help improve people’s lives without creating more problems than they solve.

Over the next few days, I’ll be blogging and tweeting from Davos (assuming I have any time in a schedule that starts early in the morning, and seems to extend to early the next morning).  Just to avoid disappointment, I won’t be dishing the dirt on off the record meetings – there are rules to respect here.  I will try and provide a sense of my experiences here though, and in particular how emerging technologies seem to be fitting in to the grand scheme of things.

But back to being just a little star-struck.  Glimpsing through the program (I’m still filling my dance card) I see that Lang Lang (the pianist) will be performing, Margaret Atwood will be talking about After the Flood and James Cameron will be discussing Avator – and that’s before I’ve even got to the serious socioeconomic stuff.

I wonder if any of them are interested in talking emerging tech over an espresso…

_______________________________________

As well as posting the occasional blog from Davos, I will be posting short comments on Twitter and the 2020 Science Facebook Page.  I also see that Jason Pontin – Editor in Chief and publisher of Technology Review – will be tweeting from the event (I’ll be talking with Jason and a few others on science and technology breakthroughs next Wednesday).

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/01/24/from-davos-with-love/feed/ 6 http://2020science.org/2010/01/07/uk-house-of-lords-scrutinizes-nanotechnology-and-food/ http://2020science.org/2010/01/07/uk-house-of-lords-scrutinizes-nanotechnology-and-food/#comments Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:33:26 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2804

Back in February of 2009, the UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee launched an inquiry into the use of nanotechnology in food products and the food industry.  Chaired by Lord Krebs (the son of Hans Adolf Krebs – best known for describing the mechanisms of energy uptake and release in cells), a small group of peers was assembled to address the potential benefits and use of nanotechnology in the food sector, arising health and safety issues, regulation, communication and public engagement.  On January 8 2010, the subcommittee’s much-anticipated report was published.  Concluding with 32 recommendations covering nanotechnology and food commercialization, potential risks, regulation and public communication and engagement, it is perhaps the most comprehensive and authoritative report on the subject to be published to date.

The UK House of Lords has, on occasion, been depicted as an anachronistic institution full of political has-beens who enjoy nothing more than a quiet snooze, lulled to sleep by the interminable droning of their peers.  Of course, reforms brought in over the past decade have done a lot to shatter this illusion.  But if there are any lingering doubts, this report should dispel them.   Under the expert guidance of Lord Krebs, this group of sharp minded and well-informed members of the House of Lords has provided an insightful and balanced perspective on the opportunities and challenges of using nanotechnology (or “nanotechnologies” as they more appropriately refer to them) in the food industry.

The process was helped enormously by an extensive consultation process.  Fifty written submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, a number of oral testimonies and meetings with experts and stakeholders in Washington DC all helped to support the committee in its assessment.  The final document reflects the input of these stakeholders, frequently citing input from industry, academics, government agencies and Non-Government Organizations.  Yet despite the breadth of information submitted, there is a strong sense that these inputs were carefully weighed and evaluated by the committee before they drew their conclusions and recommendations.

The report is clearly written and accessible, and I would recommend strongly anyone working with nanotechnology and food to read it in its entirety.  I suspect that it is going to become a significant and influential factor in the development of responsible and acceptable uses of nanotechnology in food products.

For those with less time and interest, I would recommend reading the summary at least, which captures the essence of the report in a couple of pages.

Just to whet your appetite though, here’s my initial impression of the report and its recommendations in four areas – Nanotechnology and food, knowledge gaps, regulation, and communication & outreach.

Nanotechnology and Food

The report shows a remarkable level of sophistication in its evaluation of nanotechnology and food.  It recognizes the long history of using technologies to modify food, recognizes consumer caution over the scientific manipulation of food products, and acknowledges the complexities surrounding the introduction of potentially beneficial new technologies.  It also highlights the rather indistinct lines between nanoscale materials that have been present in foods forever (such as protein nanoparticles in ricotta cheese) compared to those more recently and intentionally introduced, and new materials that behave in unusual ways compared to those that are just small.  This clarity of perception underpins many of the report’s recommendations.

The potential of nanomaterials to add value to food products is readily acknowledged in the report:

“Nanomaterials have a range of potential applications in the food sector that may offer benefits to both consumers and industry.  These include creating foods with unaltered taste but lower fat, salt or sugar levels, or improved packaging that keeps food fresher for longer or tells consumers if the food inside is spoiled.”

But the authors go on to note that the number of nanotechnology-based food products on the market is currently small.  To help ensure the responsible development of nanotechnologies in the food sector, recommendations are made on government actions to “ensure the potential benefits to consumers and society are supported,”  including improving the effectiveness of technology transfer between researchers and industry.

Counterbalancing the technological promise of nanotechnology, the report’s authors are also highly aware of the broader social issues surrounding the use of emerging technologies in food.  And as a result, the majority of the report’s recommendations are focused on addressing and responding to these issues.

Knowledge gaps

Despite the promise of nanotechnology in the food sector, the report highlights a number of critical knowledge gaps to developing safe and trusted nanotech-enabled food products.  Again, the discussion is informed and comprehensive.

At the outset, the report notes that the subcommittee “received no evidence, however, of instances where ingested nanomaterials have harmed human health,” dispelling fears of speculative scaremongering (although I see that early press coverage is focusing on risks and uncertainties). At the same time the report’s authors acknowledge that the

“novel properties of engineered nanomaterials may affect how such materials interact with the body and the risks they present to human health.”

Six areas of concern are flagged where novel nanomaterials might cause unexpected harm, covering the influence of particle size, solubility & persistence, chemical & catalytic reactivity, material shape, anti-microbial effects and agglomeration & aggregation.  Despite these concerns – which have been raised repeatedly by researchers and others over the past few years – the report notes a dearth of research on the “impact, behaviour and interactions of nanomaterials in the [gastrointestinal] tract, including their effect on gut flora.”

Targeted research to fill this knowledge gap is a key recommendation of the report.

Regulation

The report’s authors devote a large chunk of space to the issue of regulation – addressing regulatory coverage and regulatory enforcement.  Although somewhat dry for a lay reader, these sections of the report tackle directly a number of issues that have plagued discussions of nanomaterial regulation for some time, including definitions, working with mixtures and labeling.

The report’s authors are very clear that a regulatory definition of nanomaterials is essential.  But they are also clear that any definition should be based on functionality rather than size – throwing out the idea that there is anything special about the traditional 100 nm cut point for nanomaterials.

The argument is made that, from a regulatory perspective, what is important is when a material starts to behave differently from what is expected – when the way that it interacts with the body is no longer the same as what is observed with a larger lump of material with the same chemistry.  This may happen at very small particle diameters with some materials – just tens of nanomaters.  But it may also occur at relatively large particle diameters for other materials.  As a result, the report recommends that regulatory definitions of nanomaterials

“should not include a size limit of 100 nm but instead refer to the ‘nanoscale’ to ensure that all materials with a dimension under 1000 nm are considered.”

This placement of the upper limit of the nanoscale at 1000 nm may well be the most controversial aspect of the report.  But the emphasis on functionality is a welcome one – as long as we can define what functionality means!

In the report’s recommendations it is also very clear that, for regulatory purposes, any definition of ‘nanomaterials’ should exclude those created from natural substances, “except for nanomaterials that have been deliberately chosen or engineered to take advantage of their nanoscale properties.”

The report also touches on the contentious issue of mixtures – powders that contain some fraction of particles which are nanometer-sized.  What do you do if you use a powder in a food product that also contains a small number of nanometer-scale particles (as most powders invariably will)?  There isn’t much insight into how to resolve this issue in the report (or elsewhere for that matter), but the report’s authors do recommend that the UK Government develops guidelines that clearly state what fraction of a powder needs to be at the nanoscale before nano-specific regulatory oversight is triggered.  This is critical to the effective regulation of nanomaterials in food products if products are not to be inappropriately under- or over-regulated.  (Imagine a scenario where a manufacturer could claim exemption from nano regs because a small fraction of a material was larger than the nanoscale, or a regulator over-zealously  applied regulations by insisting that a conventional material containing a small fraction of nanoparticles was a nanomaterial. The only thing worse would be a complete lack of clarity on when a product containing a range of particle sizes was considered nano and when it was not – which unfortunately is where we are at the moment!)

On labeling, the report states

“Consumers can expect to have access to information about the food they eat.  But blanket labeling of nanomaterials on packages is not, in our view, the right approach to providing information about the application of nanotechnologies.”

Rather, the report’s authors recommend a public registry of foods containing nanomaterials.

Communication & Outreach

Six of the report’s recommendations deal directly with effective communication and public engagement.  From the outset, the report’s authors recognize the importance of public attitudes towards food, and the need to engage consumers in the use of nanotechnologies in food products.  The report’s summary opens

“People are understandably sensitive about changes to the food they eat.  In the past the introduction of novel technologies in the food sector has sometimes met with resistance or even holstility.  The public’s attitude toward food is influenced by a number of considerations including a fear of novel risks, the level of trust in the effectiveness of regulation, and other wider social and psychological factors (shaped by views on health, the environment and science).  The development of nanotechnologies in the food sector may well elicit some of these concerns.”

Later on, the report states that “our witnesses confirmed that public attitudes towards the use of nanotechnologies were among the most important factors in determining their future in the food sector.”

Transparency within the industry was seen as critical to addressing potential public fears and concerns.  Yet after talking with stakeholders, the subcommittee came to the conclusion that the food industry are being far from transparent at the moment, and that this may potentially damage the responsible use of nanotechnologies in foods in the long run.  They “found it regrettable that evidence indicated that, far from being transparent about its activities, the food industry was refusing to talk about work in this area.”

A number of witnesses stressed the reticence of food companies to talk about nanotechnology openly, for fear of a loss of consumer confidence.  Franz Kampers from Wageningen University told the subcommittee

“the industry is very, very reluctant to communicate that they are using nanotechnology in food … because they are very much afraid oof the reaction of consumers to the product.”

Yet after hearing evidence from a number of quarters, the subcommittee concluded that

“this is exactly the type of behaviour which may bring about the public reaction which it is trying to avert.”

As a result the subcommittee recommended that the UK Government work with the industry to ensure greater openness and transparency about what they are developing, and what their plans are for using nanotechnology in food products.

The subcommittee also stressed the need for a robust Government communication strategy.  They praised the Government for establishing the Nano & Me website, which provides anyone who is interested with accessible information on nanotechnology – including its use in food.  Unfortunately, they failed to note that Nano & Me is under threat because the UK government isn’t stumping up paltry sums of money to ensure its upkeep!

Finally, the report emphasizes the need for public engagement, which provides people with the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.  They acknowledge that this is a complex task, and have some interesting perspectives on how to proceed here.  In particular, the suggest that the provision of engagement opportunities might in itself be sufficient – that people will be reassured that someone has the opportunity to engaging on their behalf – and that the voice of the public”is often most effectively mediated by representative groups such as consumer groups, non governmental organisations (NGO’s) and individuals with a particular interest in this topic.”

I’m not sure how far I agree with these suggestions.  But perhaps the most important thing here is that the subcommittee recognize that engagement is about giving people a voice and a place at the table, not just about communication.

These are just some of the things that jumped out at me as I read through this report today.  There are many other aspects to it which deserve greater attention.  Not all of the comments and recommendations will meet with universal approval I am sure.  But without a doubt, this is the most thoughtful, informed and insightful piece on nanotechnology and food I have read in a long time.

The full House of Lords Nanotechnologies and Food report is available here.

By Jim Thomas, ETC Group

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

For a fresh perspective on how to do technology governance consider starting somewhere else. I suggest York Castle in Northern England – a stark stone tower from the thirteenth century.

It was here in 1812 that the English state first executed fifteen men for the newly established crime of machine-breaking. They were Luddites – the original kind: artisan weavers who saw the factory system as an assault on their livelihoods and communities. At the time England was convulsed by the ‘machine question’ – with fiery debates in parliament and hundreds of fiery attacks on cloth mills by followers of the mythical Ned Ludd. As the first industrial revolution gathered steam, literally, the political class made a deliberate decision to side with the new industrialists. 12,000 Soldiers were deployed to quell the Luddite uprising – more than were abroad fighting Napoleon. The Frame Breaking Act made Luddism punishable by death and in time the word Luddite itself was transformed into a term of contempt and abuse that lasted all the way to 21^st century science debates. Its fair to say the Luddites lost – big time.

I should admit right now that I’m a big fan of the Luddites – Not that its much fun supporting an extinct political movement. Unlike sports teams there’s neither merchandise to buy nor Facebook groups to join (not unless you count this: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ye-Luddites/121981285761?v=info ). But I like Ned Ludd and his gang for two reasons.

Firstly I think they were right in ways they didn’t even know at the time. Our contemporary crises of climate change, overproduction and industrial pollution trace back in obvious ways to the industrial revolution as do the emergence of  urban and labour problems that flowed from the factory system and the urbanization that it gave rise to. The new cloth factories made possible a level of demand that justified establishing cotton plantations and a vicious slave trade setting in motion cycles of violence and racism that still persist today. Did the industrial revolution also bring benefits to society – of course it did although those benefits remain very unevenly distributed. Did the Luddites know they were fighting the roots of future racism. No – but their instincts were good.

Secondly I admire the Luddites for their success (albeit brief) in creating  a large-scale truly popular debate about emerging technologies. The widespread uprising of 1811-16 was more than just a wave of hysterics. Popular geek culture casts a ‘Luddite’ as a technologically inept dunce, fearful of change. Historical accounts reveal nothing of the sort. Real Luddites were adept users of complex hand weaving looms. They often espoused nuanced views on the technological revolution happening around them. They were not uniformly anti-technology: Their grievances, as recorded in song and declarations , were specifically with technologies that were “harmful to the common good” – as good a standard as any against which to asses technological appropriateness.  In their night time raids they would break some mechanical frames that they considered unjust while leaving others untouched that they considered benign. They recognised technological power as political, entwined with monopoly power and responsible for a lowering of standards and production of shoddy goods. They even practiced a radical form of democratic  technology assessment that we haven’t seen the like of since: dragging bulky mechanical looms to the market place to hold public trials in which all the community could pass judgement on the new machines – a public consultation process of the most inclusive kind.

I was once involved in organizing such a Luddite-style technology trial – at York Castle no less. A group of fellow activists dragged a motor car to the old stone tower and we set up public court, inviting bystanders to testify for or against the impact of the internal combustion engine on all our lives. Road kill, asthma, community destruction and climate change were weighed against the increased mobility and economic opportunities provided by four fast wheels. Everyone who happened to pass by became the jury.  On balance the car was found guilty of being ‘harmful to the common good’ but received a lighter sentence than the Luddites had on the same spot. This symbolic exercise in popular assessment of technology was exactly 100 years too late to influence the relevant innovation policy. Nonetheless it set me thinking: What if we weren’t too late? What if we could drag emerging technologies into a modern court of public deliberation and democratic oversight. What might that look like?

I’ve been turning over that question for about 15 years now while active in global debates on emerging technologies –  particularly GM Crops, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  Geo-engineering – Debates in which I’ve encountered the term Luddite, meant as a slur, more times than I care to count. Language like this tumbles carelessly out of history .. but I find the parallels striking. Once again we are in the early phases of a new industrial revolution. Once again powerful technologies (Converging Technologies ) are physically remaking and sometimes disintegrating our societies. Those  of us in civil society carrying out bit-part campaigns, issuing press releases and launching legal challenges are in a sense attempting to drag technology governance away from the darkness of narrow expert committees and into the sunny court of public deliberation for a broader hearing.. It seems a perfectly reasonable and democratic urge. But there’s got to be a better and more systematic way to do that?

So far I’ve found three sets of proposals that might begin to put technology oversight into the open and back in the hands of a wider public:

• Public Engagement: Citizens Juries, Knowledge exchanges, People’s Commissions.

No don’t yawn. I grant you that science policy types (and the rest of us) have every reason to groan when they hear the term “Public engagement in Science”. Like other  empty buzz phrases (“sustainable development” and “corporate social responsibility” come to mind) its too easily appropriated – but there is still (just about) some value in imagining and practicing what actual involvement mechanisms we could craft to enable a more democratic form of innovation governance.  Citizen’s Juries in places as diverse as Andra Pradesh, Mali and Brazil have enabled marginalized groups such as farmers to at least take a place alongside seed companies and biotech giants in policy processes. While People’s Commissions (investigation processes run by citizens groups) may get short shrift from a condescending political establishment yet can often exhibit excellent foresight, drawing on sources of grassroots knowledge  that closetted self-referential science committees might never open up to. These days my faith in public engagement  is waning having watched several governments employ such processes as a thinly disguised public relations ploy or to tie up the energies of civil society. Unless a public engagement process has a clear promise by those in power that they will listen, respond and demonstrably act on reccomendations its likely to lose the interest of the participants too.

• Global Oversight: ICENT.

ICENT stands for the International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies – a UN level body for foresighting emerging technology trends and then applying a wide-ranging assessment process that will consider the social, environmental and justice implications of the innovation being scrutinised. It doesn’t exist yet and maybe it never will but at ETC Group we have dedicated a lot of time to imagining what such a body could look like (we even have some nifty organagrams – see pg 36-40 of this) For example there would be bodies scanning the technological horizon and others making a rough reckoning of whether a new technology needed a strong oversight framework or not. Others tasked with bringing in a broad range of knowledge (what do the indigenous folks say?) or identifying exactly the right place in the system of global governance to begin regulatory moves. At a time when tech governance is several decades late each time we find a new platform emerging (Nanotech? Synthetic Biology? Geoengineering?) An ICENT–like body could maybe get international machinery in gear a bit quicker – ideally before industrial interests have already written those technologies into next quarter’s earning sheets and are shipping them to market.

• Popular assessment : Technopedia?

The only governance and regulations that work are those where somebody is paying attention – so  rather than hide technology assessment in rarefied committees why not hand it to the wisdom of the crowds. Wikipedia may not be the most perfectly accurate source of all knowledge but it is comprehensive, up to date and flexible and provides an interesting model. Actually Wikipedia entries are often not a bad place to start if you want to suss out the societal and environmental issues raised by the zeitgeist regarding new technologies. How about a dedicated wiki site for collaborative monitoring and judging of emerging technologies? Such a site could be structured so that, unlike the halls of power, marginal voices have a space and are welcome. A grassroots army of  volunteer technology assessors could help fill out the questions that Brussels or Washington never asks: What is the feminist take on this technology? How does it impact indigenous or disabled groups? What livelihood issues does this raise for the poor? Will the global commodities trade be affected? Perhaps an extended social media approach to technology assessment could convene online juries, host global conference calls and draft peoples reports for input into policy deliberations.

Don’t get me wrong.. approaches like these are not panaceas .. Adopt them all and some of us in civil society  might still feel there are a few metaphorical mechanical frames that would still need breaking. For example I’m not sure a modern day Ned Ludd would be content to spend his whole time writing wiki entries.

Then again, at least he might participate in his own facebook group…

______________________________

Jim Thomas is a Research Programme Manager and Writer with the ETC Group based in Montreal, Canada. His background is in communications, writing on emerging technologies and international campaigning.

Formerly an organiser with grassroots direct action movements in Europe and North America, Jim spent seven years with  Greenpeace International as a campaigner on food and genetic  engineering issues before joining ETC Group in 2002. Jim organised the  first international meeting on the societal impacts of Nanotechnology (held in the European Parliament), speaks around the world on  emerging technology issues and has authored several reports, chapters and press  articles on Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  GeoEngineering.  He writes a regular ‘Tech Reckoning’ column for The Ecologist Magazine exploring the  politics of next generation technologies.

Trained as a historian to look back at the history of technology, Jim is now proccupied with the future of technology. Once upon a time he was an award winning slam poet but then he had children…

ETC Group have a blog too…

Part 9 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21^st century

Writing about completing the circle of science and technology policy at the start of the Copenhagen climate summit seems particularly fitting.  Although the climate change context was far from my mind when I started this series, it stands as a stark reminder of the consequences of unconstrained science and technology, the possibilities of using science and technology to create a better future, and the daunting complexities of crafting policies that get us as a society to where we want to be.

Whether it’s dealing with climate change or innumerable other issues, the way we develop and use science and technology needs to be responsive to the challenges we face as a society, and the social, political and economic environment within which we face them.  Simply funding scientists to do what takes their fancy isn’t likely to deliver the goods in a world increasingly dominated by the three C’s – Communication, Control and Coupling.  Yet heavy-handed control of the science agenda is clearly not the answer—autonomy and open-ended research are essential to scientific discovery and innovation.

So what’s the answer?  How do we ensure our investment in science and technology as a society achieves what we believe it should, without over-indulging a science elite, or stifling discovery and innovation?  At the end of the last blog in this series I suggested that we need increased feedback in the policy process to make it work better.

Feedback loops take some of the output of a process and feed it back into the input – they’re a way of regulating a process so that it remains responsive, and doesn’t get out of control.  Of course, the business of policy is full of feedback loops.  In fact the whole political process can be seen as one rather large feedback loop – unpopular leaders and decisions usually end up being overturned, although sometimes the “time constants” are rather long.  The next two weeks in Copenhagen is a prime example of feedback in policy-making – even if this is a feedback loop with a rather large time constant.

However just because feedback mechanisms exist doesn’t mean that they are as effective as they could be…

In part 8 of this series, I proposed two feedback loops in particular that will become increasingly important to developing more responsive science and technology policy: Review and Participation.

The Review loop should be reasonably clear: It deals with comparing the actual impact of policy decisions with the intended impact, and adjusting the inputs to realign the outcomes.  This might mean altering the original goals, increasing (or even decreasing) the resources made available for specific areas, or changing the mechanisms by which those resources are used (for example).  It seems obvious, but it isn’t often done that well in practice.  There’s a fine line between too little and too much feedback, or feedback that’s fast but ill-informed and feedback that’s comprehensive but interminable!  Yet if we don’t get this balance right, it will be near-impossible to craft policies that respond to the ever-accelerating opportunities and challenges presented by 21^st century science and technology.

The Participation loop on the other hand may not be quite so clear.  This arises in to a large degree from one of the three “C’s” – communication – but is also driven by the other two – control and coupling.

Old-style “command and control” approaches to policy haven’t a hope of working in tomorrow’s hyper-connected world.  Through rapid and radical advances in global communication, people have become an inextricable part of the decision-making process – as a society, we now have a louder voice than ever before.  Policy makers can either fight this, or embrace it.

Integrating the participation of individuals and groups with a stake in science and technology into the policy process is a pragmatic necessity.  These are the people who will be affected by the outcomes of decisions made by governments, and who will become increasingly vocal – and influential – if they don’t like those decisions.  They are also a potential force for positive change – by listening to the “consumers” of science and technology, it becomes possible to craft policies which address their actual wants and needs, rather than making assumptions on their behalf.

There is also an ethical dimension here – to what extent is it appropriate for an elite handful of decision-makers to decide what is good for the masses?  Certainly, where highly complex information needs to be understood, interpreted and acted on, expert input is needed.  But broader decisions on the relevance and implications of science and technology should arguably involve the people (and organizations) who stand to benefit or suffer as a result of them.

So what are the keys and consequences to developing (or further developing) these two feedback loops?

When I gave the original lecture on which these notes are based, I identified three action-areas that will both help establish the loops, and ensure their effectiveness: empowerment, engagement and evaluation.

Empowering stakeholders

Neither of these two feedback loops will work if people and organizations are not empowered to become effective stakeholders.  This goes for expert stakeholders as well as lay stakeholders (which in most cases is people like you and me).  However, the challenges to empowering each group are different.

Lay stakeholders need to be provided with the ability to deal with the complexities of modern science and technology – and not to be intimidated by them.  Critical thinking is essential here – people need to be enabled to make sense of information, and separate out what is more important from what is less significant.  Information also needs to be accessible – in its original form (predominantly as peer reviewed publications), in non-expert syntheses, and in appropriate media coverage (and I’m including blogs here).  And importantly, the consequences of science and technology-related decisions need to be conveyed to non-expert stakeholders.  Even though many people struggle to understand the principles behind modern science and technology, most can grasp what it means to them personally if it is explained well.

Expert stakeholders on the other hand need to learn to communicate effectively, if they are to play their part in these feedback loops.  And critically, they need to learn to listen – to understand what the questions are, before providing answers.

Engaging stakeholders

This is a huge subject, worthy of several blog sites on its own (many of which already exist), and there is no way I can do it justice in a few sentences.  Yet looking at stakeholder engagement from the perspective of the two feedback loops being discussed, four points are worth highlighting:

First is the need for public discourse.  Without this, how will people know what is going on in science and technology, how it will affect them, and how they can play a part in shaping their future?  This leads directly into participation in decision-making.  Public engagement is not about communication, education or persuasion – it is about making people an integral part of the policy process – providing them with a seat at the table, where they will be listened to and taken seriously.

Effective public discourse and engagement will only be possible though if science is more completely integrated into society.  Rather than being seen as someone else’s problem, science in the 21^st century needs to be seen as everyone’s “problem.”  This will need some cultural changes if progress is to be made, from addressing educators who can’t see the point of science, to tackling politicians and public figures that undermine it, to dealing with scientists who strive to maintain their self-allotted place at the top of the intellectual pyramid.  But without changing the culture that determines science’s place within society, it will remain the realm of the elite.  And in a world increasingly dependent on science and technology, this can only lead to a Technocracy – in spirit, if not in name.

One possible approach to increasing the level of science and technology engagement is to build science and technology constituencies – groups of people with a vested interest in seeing science and technology developed and used effectively in specific areas.  The idea comes from medical research, where highly vocal involvement from non-expert stakeholders can have a huge influence on research investment, direction and application.

This approach is fraught with difficulties – the possibilities for ill-informed decisions are rife when poorly informed groups lobby for narrow areas of research to take a specific course.  But putting that aside, it’s intriguing to ask what would happen if communities were energized to be a part of research initiatives into areas like clean energy, water access, transport, food production?  What if passive lay “stakeholders” were given the opportunity to be active stakeholders, who could see a direct return on their investment in supporting and being a part of research initiatives that meant something to them?

Science and technology constituencies are a potentially dangerous idea – they take power away from the established elite for a start.  But it’s an intriguing concept nevertheless, and one that should probably be explored further.

(Re)Evaluating drivers, mechanisms and policies.

Finally, what’s the relevance of these feedback loops to people in a position to review and influence policy decisions?

In my original lecture, I highlighted three areas that policy makers and research funders should be focusing on: challenge-informed science, new knowledge stimulation, and knowledge-coupling.

Challenge-informed science. This is a bit of a hot potato.  The question of how you strike a balance between so-called blue skies research and applied research has vexed the science community for years, and at times has become extremely heated.  But rather than argue for one or the other, I would reframe the question and ask “how can we best develop science and technology policies that are socially relevant?”

Science for its own sake is essential – as I explain below.  But policy makers are accountable for how they spend a limited pot of public money.  For instance, if a country or region is facing challenges that will impact severely on peoples’ lives and livelihoods, and that could be alleviated through strategic investment in science and technology, it is hard for policy makers to argue for the bulk of science funding to go towards research that is irrelevant, which may serendipitously lead to some solutions to some future challenges, or which will lead to relevant knowledge but too late to be of any use.

Of course, the counter-argument is that it is naïve to assume that science and technology can be coerced into providing rapid solutions to challenges.  I would agree with this.  Yet at the same time, it is entirely possible for science and technology to be framed and guided—informed—by challenges (and opportunities) that society is facing now, or is likely to face in the future.  This doesn’t preclude blue skies research – but it does increase the chances of science and technology leading to socially relevant solutions.

And it should never be forgotten that practicing science is not an inalienable right – scientists (and technologists and engineers) and ultimately accountable to their patrons – who in this day and age tend to be their fellow citizens.

New Knowledge stimulation. So where does that leave blue skies research?  I would argue that there is always a justification for supporting open ended, exploratory research for three reasons:  It enriches society through raising our awareness of who we are and the universe we live in; it leads to serendipitous discovery; and it lays a foundation on which more applied research and technology innovation can be built.  It is essential to the science enterprise.  The only question is where the balance between open ended and ends-justified research should be.

I would argue that blue skies research should not dominate science and technology, except where there is a strong and specific argument for it to do so (the mega-expensive Large Hadron Collider comes to mind, where progress can only be made with substantial investment and little promise of practical return).  I would also suggest that it should be led by the most able researchers—those most capable of pushing the boundaries of knowledge.  And it should still be held accountable – even if this means communicating the more metaphysical and philosophical impacts of the work.  Blue skies research should never be a free ticket for researchers to do what they want at someone else’s expense.

Knowledge coupling. “Interdisciplinary research” is a buzz phrase that has been around for decades – often as a means of winning grants, which are then used for anything but true interdisciplinary research.  Yet it’s hard to deny that some of the more significant advances in science and technology occur at the intersections between different areas of expertise.  And it’s not only when researchers work between different scientific disciplines that innovation occurs – collaborations between scientists and engineers, social scientists, experts in the humanities and others are proving to be equally profitable.

What we are seeing is the effect of “knowledge coupling” – ensuring knowledge can flow between different fields of expertise with ease, leading to new ideas, new avenues of research and, ultimately, new advances in science and technology.  This seems to be a more useful concept than “interdisciplinary research” as it captures the essence of how knowledge and information lead to discovery, innovation and progress.  The more we can remove barriers to this cross-disciplinary, cross-expertise and cross-sector flow of knowledge, the better we will be at both stimulating new science, and using it effectively.

Pulling it all together

Developing and using science and technology effectively in the 21^st century will not be easy.  Increasingly, we’re facing “wicked problems” – problems that many stakeholders are interested in, but which remain elusive and ill-defined.  Science and technology are leading to some of these problems, but they also hold the keys to solving them – but only if we learn to use them wisely and effectively.  Integral to this process is getting the policy framework right, so that informed and effective decisions can be made.  And this in turn will depend on how the outcomes of the science and technology enterprise are fed back into the inputs – leading to policies that are responsive and effective.

As scientists, leaders, decision-makers, lobbyists and others gather in Copenhagen over the next two weeks, it will be an interesting test of how effectively science and technology policy are serving society, and how far we still have to go if we are to rise to the emerging challenges of the 21^st century.  Will we see the “nasty brutish debate with science caught somewhere in the middle” predicted by Tim Harper, or will a more mature and enlightened approach emerge?

I suspect Tim is right on this one, but hopefully he isn’t – because more than ever before we need to get science and technology right if we are to deal with the opportunities and challenges that Coupling, Communication and Control are going to throw our way over the coming decades.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.

Previously: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

Next: Science and Technology Innovation – looking to the future

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/12/07/completing-the-circle-coupling-science-technology-outputs-to-inputs/feed/ 0 http://2020science.org/2009/11/22/whats-emerging-technology-got-to-do-with-it/ http://2020science.org/2009/11/22/whats-emerging-technology-got-to-do-with-it/#comments Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:00:31 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2437

As this weekend’s Summit on the Global Agenda came to a close this morning, I was left with an abiding impression of a looming yet largely hidden potential crisis in global security and prosperity: A failure to develop and use technology innovation effectively in serving the growing needs of society.

The summit set out to address a multitude of challenges to “improving the state of the world” (as the World Economic Forum tagline goes), and identified many innovative solutions to overcoming them.  Yet in many cases there was a disconnect between the ideas and their effective implementation…

Where the translation of an idea into practice depended on social or policy innovation, there were often clear thoughts on how to move forward.  But an integrated discussion on the role of technology innovation in enabling solutions to global challenges was conspicuous by its absence.

It wasn’t that delegates didn’t realize the importance of technology innovation.  On the contrary, many of the recommendations coming out of the Summit acknowledged the need to develop and use appropriately new and emerging technologies.  But there was a sense that technology innovation simply happens and that, as needs arise, solutions will naturally emerge.

I was reminded of this while listening to feedback from the Council on Water Security, whose members experienced a similar lack of awareness amongst Summit delegates.  When they asked people where the water would come from to support their ideas in various areas, the reply was inevitably “I guess it will come from somewhere” – to the amusement and consternation of the Council members.

The same blind spot seems to exist for technology innovation.  People realize that technology innovation is important. But when asked where it will come from, the assumption is simply that “it will come from somewhere.”

This is as dangerous as it is wrong.

Strategically relevant technology does not just happen.  It depends on targeted investment, coupling outputs to needs, and working with stakeholders to develop and implement appropriate and acceptable solutions.  And it takes time – lost of it.  Developing appropriate technology-based solutions to global challenges is only possible if  technology innovation policy is integrated into the decision-making process at the highest levels in government, industry and other relevant organizations.  Without such high-level oversight, there is a tendency to use the technology that’s available, rather than to develop the technology that’s needed.  And as the challenges of living in an over-populated and under-resourced world escalate, this will only exacerbate the disconnect between critical challenges and technology-based solutions.

The importance of technology innovation – and emerging technologies in particular – was highlighted by Lord Malloch-Brown in his closing remarks at this year’s Summit on the Global Agenda.  Yet there is still a way to go before technology innovation is integrated into the global agenda dialogue, rather than being tacked on to it.

At this year’s Summit, there was one Council out of seventy six that was specifically charged with addressing technology innovation – the Council on Emerging Technologies.  And in a move that speaks volumes about the economic and policy world’s disdain for science and technology, the Council was placed in the “Managing Global Risks and Addressing Systemic Failures” cluster.  Clearly, emerging technologies are perceived more as a threat than an enabler of solutions.

If progress is to be made, this must change in future years.  Technology innovation is key to improving the state of the world.  And getting it right – targeting research, translating innovation to practice and engaging stakeholders – is essential to addressing many of the major challenges being addressed by the Summit on the Global Agenda.  Rather than burying the Council on Emerging Technologies along with catastrophic risks, illicit trade, pandemics and other risk-focused councils, it surely makes sense to elevate it – along with other science and technology-rich councils – to a place where it can inform the dialogue at a much higher level.

Of course, I’m mindful here that this is the World Economic Forum I’m talking about, not the World Technology Innovation Forum.  But the cold hard truth is that without global intervention, there is no guarantee that technology innovation will provide solutions to the challenges that the Forum is attempting to address.

The bottom line is that whether we are talking about economic prosperity, social stability or personal well-being, we marginalize the role of technology innovation at our peril.  The broader work of the World Economic Forum reflects this.  Hopefully, so will next year’s Summit on the Global Agenda.

Good brainstorms are oft anticipated and rarely encountered.  So I tend to get a little excited when I find myself in one that stimulates rather than stultifies.

Today at the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda had more than it’s fair share of frustrations – including what I can only describe as a masterful demonstration in the art of assisted group-think entropy (sense in, nonsense out). But rather than moan about the negatives, I want to emphasize one of the highlights of the meeting – the Global Agenda Council Fair.

The Global Agenda Council Fair is the part of the Summit where attendees are free to roam amongst the 76 councils, talking about common interests and sparking new ideas off other delegates.  For me it’s like being a kid in a candy store – a chance to dip into seventy-six groups of people ready and willing to discuss everything from the Climate Change to the Future of Entertainment.  Sadly, with only an hour or so available and an Emerging Technologies agenda to follow, I had to restrict myself to two Councils today.  But it was still a lot of fun – and very worthwhile.

So let me give you a flavor of how things worked.

The first group I visited was the Catastrophic Risks Council.  When I arrived, there was a discussion in full flow about the need to get a handle on distinguishing more likely/higher impact global catastrophic risks from those less likely to happen or cause serious harm.  A more rational approach to risk identification and action – it was being argued – would help channel resources to where they could be used most effectively, while reducing anxiety from unwarranted speculation.  The solution – a World Risk Organization.

I had come to the group in part to talk about a proposal from my own Council on a new global center to inform policies on developing safe, sustainable and successful emerging technologies, and was immediately struck by how well the two ideas meshed together.  Emerging technologies have the potential to create serious problems if not developed appropriately.  Yet they also provide possible solutions to dealing with problems from other sources.  By taking an informed approach to weighing potential risks and benefits and taking action, I could see how the two ideas could be highly complimentary.

At this point, a delegate from the International Legal System Council entered the booth.  And the immediate reaction to the idea of a World Risk Organization?  “How about the risk-equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?”

It transpired that the International Legal System Council had been working on the idea of an Intergovernmental Panel on Global Risks.

Who would have thought there would be such synergy between catastrophic risks, emerging technologies and international legal systems!

The second group I visited was the Food Security Council.  Here the discussion was a little more diffuse, but stimulating nevertheless.  The idea of using mobile phones and cellular networks to monitor and treat crops came up as an innovative intersection between emerging technologies and ensuring good food production.  It’s not a new idea, but it is a great example of how new technologies can have unexpected benefits – if accompanied by some creative lateral thinking.

More interesting was a discussion about identifying counterfeit pesticides and fertilizers.  A delegate from the Illicit Trade Council had raised the issue of how important it is to track the origin of food products, preventing illicit – and potentially harmful – products from entering the food chain.  This led to an observation that counterfeit fertilizers and pesticides are a serious problem in some developing economies.  Not only do they undermine legitimate trade, but they often jeopardize the health and safety of crops – with serious consequences to communities that rely on them.  Apparently though – and this was news to me – the origins of fertilizers and pesticides in developing economies are often hard to identify.

There was a clear link here with the potential use of emerging technologies for enabling cost-effective and robust tagging of legitimate products.  Using advances in complex chemicals, engineered nanomaterials or bioengineering, it should be possible to develop new ways to ensure the quality of agricultural products – supporting higher quality and higher volume crop yields, and improving the health and lives of people dependent on them.

In the space of an hour I had learned some new stuff, added value to other people’s concepts, and started formulating some new ideas of my own.  And this was happening all around me – 700 people being exposed to dangerously high levels of mental stimulation!

For me, this was a highlight of today’s sessions.  Okay so the two-hour meeting on reducing ten sharp ideas to eight woolly ones was a little tedious, and working out what we were supposed to be doing was challenging at times.  But the sheer enjoyment and serendipity of the Council Fair more than made up for these.

The challenge now is seeing whether any of those sparks can be coaxed into a fully fledged fire!

For the next three days I will be participating in and blogging from the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda in Dubai.  If last year’s summit – described as the “World’s largest brainstorming” – is anything to go by, we’re in for an intense few days.  The summit draws on the WEF’s Global Agenda Councils, and creates a forum for over 700 thought-leaders representing over 90 countries to mix and match ideas on issues as diverse as catastrophic global risks to the role of faith in society, and sustainable consumption to the future of entertainment.

This year, the Summit is focused on contributing to the World Economic Forum’s Global Redesign Initiative (GRI) – a multistakeholder dialogue addressing the challenges of the 21st century. Tapping into expertise within industry, governmental, civil society, academic and media communities, the GRI is addressing six themes:

1. Creating a Values Framework considers the universal values needed for constructive coexistence in an interdependent world characterized by cultural diversity.
2. Mitigating Global Risks and Addressing Systemic Failures – includes all eventualities and risks which may have adverse consequences on a global level.
3. Strengthening Economies encompasses all aspects of economic growth and development.
4. Enhancing Security speaks to the need for global, national and human security.
5. Ensuring Sustainability addresses human behaviour in the global ecosystem.
6. Building Effective Institutions reflects on the necessary institutional context for effective global governance.

Discussions over the next three days will revolve around these themes, as well as feeding directly into the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters.

Last year, I found it intriguing and more than a little worrying that, while many of the issues being addressed by the Global Agenda Councils depend on science and technology innovation, science and technology were not central to the discussions.  Hopefully this year will see a shift in emphasis.  The good news is that we now have a Council on Emerging Technologies (which I participate in), which will be working with a number of other Councils to help establish science and technology-grounded discussions.

Whether or not we achieve as much integration as I would like remains to be seen.  Either way, if last year was anything to go by, we’re in for a stimulating, challenging and exciting few days.  I must confess, I get a tremendous buzz out of dropping in on intense conversations in areas I know nothing about, with experts I would normally never cross paths with – and experiencing the mental light bulbs flash on as we compare notes and exchange ideas.  And with 700 smart people cloistered together for three days, I can guarantee there are going to be a lot of bulbs lighting up in Dubai this weekend.

Of course, the location helps – but it’s the people that matter.  Really…

If all goes according to plan, I’ll be posting each day between now and Sunday November 22nd on how the Summit’s going from my perspective, so stay tuned.

First thought I have to get there.

Signing off from JFK, waiting for the flight out to Dubai.

This is a first for 2020 Science – a plug for a meeting which I have nothing to do with!  But next month’s seminar on the Biopolitics of Popular Culture being run by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) looks so intriguing that I couldn’t resist! (that, and a heads-up from IEET Managing Director Mike Treder )

First though, a word on that term “biopolitics.”  Biopolitics is a rather versatile concept that embraces a whole raft of stuff – from politics of bioethics through the use of biotechnology to human enhancement (check this overview out if you really want your brain scrambled).  But there seems to be some convergence on the idea of biopolitics as grappling with the tough questions that arise at the intersection of emerging technologies and life.

In other words, how do we handle new technologies that could profoundly and intimately alter who we are and what we can do as a species?

When Jeff Goldblum’s character in the movie Jurassic Park came out with the line “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should” he was echoing a long-running debate on who decides how science is used.  As the rate of scientific discovery and technology innovation accelerates, this question is becoming increasingly relevant, and is central it seems to biopolitics.

But biopolitics is also being driven by another factor – imagination.

Imagination drives the vision of scientists underpinning emerging technologies – it’s the ever-present “what if…” of the consummate researcher.  It drives the promoters of emerging technologies – selling dreams of Utopian futures enabled by revolutionary breakthroughs.  And it fuels the aspirations and fears of people who stand to benefit or suffer from technological advancements – turning technological possibilities into imagined probabilities that end up influencing lives in complex ways.

And here you have the link with popular culture.

To quote the introduction to the IEET seminar,

Our most transcendent expectations for technology come from pop culture, and the most common objections to emerging technologies come from science fiction and horror, from Frankenstein and Brave New World to Gattaca and the Terminator.

Why is it that almost every person in fiction who wants to live a longer than normal life is evil or pays some terrible price? What does it say about attitudes towards posthuman possibilities when mutants in Heroes or the X-Men, or cyborgs in Battlestar Galactica or Iron Man, or vampires in True Blood or Twilight are depicted as capable of responsible citizenship?

Is Hollywood reflecting a transhuman turn in popular culture, helping us imagine a day when magical and muggle can live together in a peaceful Star Trek federation? Will the merging of pop culture, social networking and virtual reality into a heightened augmented reality encourage us all to make our lives a form of participative fiction?

It’s this interplay between popular imagination, technology development and – for want of a better word – “biopolitics” that I find fascinating.  And to explore it, IEET have lined up an equally fascinating group of people – including Annalee Newitz (editor of Science Fiction blog io9), David Brin (scientist and best-selling author), Natasha Vita-More (pioneer of transhumanists aesthetics) and Jamais Cascio (futurist), along with may others.

Sadly, I won’t be around in Irvine CA on December 4, and so will miss the fun.  But if you are even remotely interested in the intersection between popular culture and future technologies, this seems to be a meeting worth checking out – more details here.

Sitting 3000 miles away from London in Washington DC, I’ve been following the dismissal of Professor David Nutt as the UK government’s senior scientific advisor on the misuse of drugs, with interest.  Not being steeped in British drugs politics, I was only vaguely aware of the tensions between the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which Nutt chaired until Friday, and UK policymakers.  So as the story broke, I found it tough to disentangle whether this was a case of a respected scientist demonstrating a blindingly naive understanding of policy, or a government forfeiting science in favor of ideology.  But the more I dig into the situation, the more it seems to highlight a worrying disdain for science and evidence* amongst policy makers.

Nutt’s dismissal will undoubtedly have long-term repercussions on the effectiveness with which UK policies prevent people’s lives being destroyed by drug abuse.  But it also calls into question how science and evidence are used in making policy decisions.  And this is what really worries me – in a science and technology-based society, where information is no longer controlled and constrained by an elite few, playing fast and loose with “evidence” is a politically and socially dangerous game that threatens to marginalize experts and undermine legitimate authority.

David Nutt’s case struck a particular chord with me.  In my day job I work with people who advise on, advocate for and formulate policy.  And I’m constantly surprised at how hard it is to ensure that recommendations and decisions are informed by “evidence,” rather than the evidence being cherry picked and massaged in support of predetermined ideas.  Even in a supposedly science-savvy administration, this is a very real challenge.  For a whole host of reasons, the system is biased towards people who see knowledge as a tradeable and malleable commodity, and who have a startlingly loose attitude toward evidence.  Even well-meaning players in the policy arena sometimes seem to struggle with listening to what the evidence says, rather selectively using it to make a point.

But the grounds for Nutt’s dismissal also struck a more personal chord. Having a son at middle school and a daughter at high school, I have been dismayed at how “evidence” is sometimes misused in the push to prevent children from abusing drugs (both legal and illegal).  My evidence is largely anecdotal, but it seems that in their “drugs education,” there is a tendency for inconvenient facts to be avoided and, on occasion,  information to be “massaged” in the effort to steer the kids toward a safer and healthier lifestyle.

Both of these examples speak to a systemic disdain for evidence – and the science on which it is often built – that results in it being a political tool, rather than a policy foundation.  And this I find truly worrying – whether dealing with drug policy or a number of other issues, we’re in danger of building a foundation-less house of cards that will collapse at the slightest touch if evidence isn’t handled with integrity and respect.

To be very clear here, I am appalled at the horrific damage caused by drug abuse to individuals and society as a whole and, like most people, I see this as a social problem that desperately needs solutions. But I struggle to see how the problem can be solved by ignoring the evidence, and promulgating what can only be described as “un-truths.”  Certainly, policy decisions need to take into account far more than just the current state of knowledge.  But without transparency, honesty, and a foundation of truth, how will people be empowered to make wise and informed decisions?

In an effort to understand whether David Nutt’s dismissal was a product of this culture of evidence-disrespect, or simply down to his political naivety, I actually took the time to read the paper that led to his removal.  It was presented to the Center for Crime and Justice Studies in the UK last week, and can be read in full here.

Given the fuss that it led to, I was expecting an outspoken and ill-considered attack on current drugs policies in the UK.

I couldn’t have been further from the truth.

Nutt’s paper – “Estimating drug harms: a risky business?” – is authoritative, insightful, pertinent, and cognizant of the broader context in which policy decisions are made.  His arguments – and the science and investigations on which they are based – were sound and well-presented.  And I found the conclusions he drew to be reasonable.

It is very clear that Nutt understands the broader social context in which policy decisions are made, and that evidence is just one of a number of factors that need to be addressed.  But he makes it very clear that this evidence should be foundational – and as a consequence, needs to be robust, available, listened to, and not distorted.

I would strongly recommend anyone tempted to weigh into this debate to read Nutt’s paper first, including Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

Especially Alan Johnson!

Perhaps Nutt’s greatest crime is that he sincerely – and altruistically I believe – tried to speak truth to power.  He attempted to provide decision-makers with a sound scientific and evidence-based foundation on which to base policies that would improve people’s lives.  Contrary to my earlier fears, it is clear that he did this with a full understanding of the the broader framework within which policy is made.  His downfall was that he was working with a government that seems to believe in speaking power to truth rather than truth to power – deciding what is right first, then bolstering this up with evidence!

Sadly, this is a model of government that is not sustainable in this day and age – I’m not sure it ever was.  Without a doubt, policy decisions need to be evidence-informed, not evidence-dictated.  But you still need to start with the evidence.  Corrupt this, and you end up harming the people you are trying (supposedly) to help.

Hopefully the rather unfortunate case of David Nutt’s dismissal will shake people up, and lead to renewed attempts to place evidence – and science – at the heart of policy making.

If it doesn’t, I’m afraid we’re in for some rough times ahead!

___________________________

*It’s common to talk about science-based decision making in policy.  But here I decided it was more appropriate to use the idea of evidence-based decision making – reflecting the language and discussions that tend to occur in policy circles.  “Evidence-based decision-making” encompasses science, but is sufficiently broad to encompass the use of multiple sources of robust, quantfiable and verifiable information.

Part 8 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21^st century

Much to my embarrassment, I’ve just realized that it was over four months ago that I wrote the previous blog in this series – a series that was supposed to evolve over just a few weeks!  Most inconveniently, other priorities ended up interfering with my well-laid plans and I found myself distracted from completing the series, just three posts before its conclusion.

The good news though is that this gives me an excuse to provide a lightning summary of the story so far, which goes something like this:

• We stand at a nexus of unimaginable technological potential, and unprecedented global challenges.  How we develop and use science and technology over the coming decades will determine the quality (and possibly even the quantity) of life for coming generations.
• Three factors in particular are influencing the challenges we face, and the tools we have at our disposal to meet them.  These are the rate at which knowledge and ideas are propagating and influencing people, the increasingly strong links between human actions and environmental re-actions, and the ability of scientists, technologists and engineers to bend the material world to their every whim; from atoms and molecules to global weather systems.  These are my three “C’s” – communication, coupling and control.
• The coupling between human actions and environmental re-actions is cumulative, non-linear, and rapidly increasing in importance.  Which means that we are now facing global challenges that are more complex and further reaching than any previous generation has had to deal with.
• Rapid changes in how we communicate with each other are rewriting the rules on how society operates, from the global scale to the local level.
• High-impact advanced in science and technology are being driven increasingly by advances in control over materials at the scale of atoms and molecules.  Atom-level control over everything from DNA to advanced materials to smart drugs is poised to vastly extend our technological reach as a species.
• Separately, these three factors confront us with new challenges and new opportunities.  Together, they demand a new way of thinking about science and technology if we’re going to ride the wave of the future, rather than being engulfed by it.

The obvious question at this point – and the subject of this blog – is “how effective are current approaches to developing and using science and technology, and what (if anything) needs to change if we are to adapt and thrive as a species?”  In other words, how as a society can we make decisions that will ensure we have the necessary scientific understanding and technological know-how to overcome emerging challenges and realize the opportunities facing us, without creating more problems than we solve?

And that means we need to talk about science and technology policy.

Effective science and technology policy depends on a robust a framework for decision-making that helps ensure an appropriate level of investment in science and technology, and a good return on that investment.  Every developed country/economy has well-established approaches to science and technology policy—whether formally expressed, or simply in the form of a prevalent set of assumptions or beliefs amongst policy makers.  And these approaches have worked okay in the main over the past fifty years or so.

But are they flexible enough to weather the looming challenges of the 21^st century?

In the United States, approaches to science and technology policy still reflect largely the thinking of Vannevar Bush.  In 1945, Bush presented President Truman with a vision of science in Science, The Endless Frontier that started with basic research, and ended with social and economic growth.  While thinking has evolved since then, many policy makers are still strongly influenced by his ideas.

In crude terms, Bush’s concept was that pure research (directed predominantly by scientists) leads to applied research, which in turn leads to technological innovation.  This in turn stimulates economic growth, which leads to more jobs, more money, and a better quality of life for citizens.

This top-down, linear model has worked well over the years in the U.S. – scientists have been funded reasonably well by the Federal Government, and have been given considerable latitude in what they do.  And in the U.S. at least, this investment seems to have resulted in considerable technology innovation and wealth generation.

But I’m not sure the same approach has got what it takes to address the very different challenges of the 21^st century.

Although current approaches to science and technology policy tend to be more sophisticated than Bush’s model, there is still a tendency to take a top-down linear approach.  Typically under this model, goals for science and technology investment are crafted, funding levels decided, and mechanisms and routes by which those funds will be allocated are identified within government.  It is then assumed that this up-front decision-making will lead to innovation, which will lead to jobs, wealth and, at the end of the day, a better quality of life for citizens.

The degree to which policy makers adhere to or diverge from this (admittedly simplistic) overview depends on where you are in the world.  But this general approach still plays a large role in determining the direction of and funding for science and technology policy in many countries.

Yet this very hierarchical approach to decision-making may not have what it takes to ensure scientific and technological success over the coming years.

First up, it assumes that heavy investment in basic research will naturally lead to technology innovation.  This over-simplistic assumption has been questioned repeatedly over the past decades, perhaps most notably by Donald E. Stokes in his book Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation – it’s an assumption that is likely to be further challenged as the interplay between science, technology and society becomes increasingly complex and dynamic.

Then it assumes that up-front investment in science and technology will naturally lead to an improved quality of life through wealth creation.  Yet the values on which the model is based are beginning to look a little simplistic—dated even—in today’s diverse and interconnected world.

And finally, it supports a top-down approach to science and technology policy that encourages policy lock-in.  This occurs when there are few mechanisms to rethink policy decisions that don’t work—a very precarious position to be in where the policy process potentially lags a long way behind technological progress.

In other words, the widely used linear model of science policy could well fall flat in a world where communication, coupling and control demand responsive and adaptive approaches to guiding and utilizing science and technology.

So what’s the alternative?

A complete rethink of science and technology policy frameworks is way beyond the scope of this blog.  But two issues stand out as being at the top of the rethink-list: the need for a less hierarchical policy framework, and the need for more effective feedback mechanisms.

Starting from the bottom, most people would agree that the end goal of investing in science and technology is improved quality of life.  But what this means and the route to achieving it will vary, depending on a number of factors.  The concept that technology innovation and wealth generation will automatically lead to an improved quality of life is one perspective—but it isn’t the only one.  As social and political boundaries are redrawn through new ways of communicating and technology-driven possibilities advance at an increasing rate, I suspect this perspective will begin to look a little naïve.  An alternative approach is to have multiple goals for the science and technology endeavor—recognizing that wealth, jobs, quality of life etc. are important and intertwined, but not necessarily linearly connected.  In other words, recognizing that quality of life may depend on more than making money!

Similarly, I suspect there will need to be a rethink of the relationship between setting top-level goals for science and technology policy and the means of achieving those goals.  Rather than a top-level steer on science and technology policy, it is going to become increasingly important to flatten the process of crafting policies that determine the direction research and development is pointed in, how much is invested in it, and how the money is spent.

But perhaps most importantly, there will need to be increased feedback between what comes out of science and technology policy, and what goes in.

In any complex and dynamic system, feedback is the key to ensuring stability and adaptability.  The Bush-type hierarchical model of science and technology policy has relatively little in the way of feedback.  But this will need to change if policies are to lead to scientific research and technological innovation that achieve what they set out to.  Rapid advances in communication, coupling and control are pushing us a long way out of equilibrium—without effective feedback loops, the consequences could be catastrophic.

A robust science and technology policy framework will depend on many and varied feedback mechanisms.  But amongst these, the ability to review inputs against outputs, and the participation of people and organizations affected by policy decisions, will be essential.

From this perspective, a revised science and technology policy framework that will help us rise to the challenges of the 21^st century might look something like this:

This is still rather simplistic.  It also reflects to a degree changes in science and technology policy that are already occurring in some countries.  But it does provide some insight into how approaches to science and technology might be crafted that will help us not just cope with life in the 21^st century, but to thrive—to ride the wave of the future rather than being engulfed by it.

I’ll look at some of these approaches to science and technology in the next blog in the series – Completing the circle: Coupling science & technology outputs to inputs.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide

Next: Completing the circle: Coupling science & technology outputs to inputs [Coming soon]

This piece was originally published by the Responsible Nano Forum as a foreword to reflections on the 5th anniversary of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report “Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties.”

Summary of the 2004 RS/RAE report

On July 29th 2004, the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering published “Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties.” It was a milestone moment for the emerging field of nanotechnology.  Authored by a panel representing a wide range of expertise and perspectives, the document highlighted the promise of nanoscale-based technologies, delved into the potential hurdles to safe and sustainable development, and eschewing “singular” wisdom, introduced the world to the term “nanotechnologies.”

It also set out a clear path toward realizing the great potential of a significant emerging technology, while avoiding harm.

Five years on, how are we doing?

Back in 2004, I was co-chair of the U.S. government working group addressing the potential implications of nanotechnology and leading nanotech health and safety-related research at NIOSH – the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health… I had previously provided comments to the RS/RAE panel, and was looking forward to the final report with anticipation.  I even cut a trip to Singapore short to be present at the report’s U.S. launch, which was hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Center—foreshadowing my move to the organization some months later.

At the time, concerns were mounting over possible new risks associated with creating materials and devices at the nanoscale, and how these would affect the technology’s development.  The previous year, Michael Crichton’s book Prey had sent the nanotech community into a tizzy over a speculative public backlash against the emerging science and technology.  And researchers were beginning to reveal hints that novel nanoscale materials could also affect humans and the environment in unconventional ways—getting to places and causing harm on a scale that belied their small size.

Into this growing tension and hype between the great promise and potential for harm that emerging nanotechnologies seemed to represent, the RS/RAE report came as a clear voice of reason.  The document was authoritative, clear, grounded in science, yet responsive to the broader social, economic and political environment within which nanotechnology was emerging.  It also placed a clear emphasis on the need to engage publics, address safety concerns and regulate emerging technologies successfully if the potential benefits from nanoscale science, engineering and technology were to be fully realized.

The RS/RAE report wasn’t the first to tackle these issues.  But it was the first to provide a clear and overarching perspective on what the opportunities and challenges were, and how to grasp the former while overcoming the latter.  In doing so, it helped to focus the thinking of the time, and illuminated a path forward toward the responsible and effective development of nanotechnology.

If the report had not been written, I cannot imagine we would have seen as much activity as we have over the past five years on developing safe, acceptable and successful nanotechnologies.  Since its publication in 2004, research, publications and discussions on the potential impacts of nanotechnologies have increased dramatically. Various European committees have reviewed the state of the science and recommended actions to underpin safe use and effective regulation.  New pan-European research programs have been funded to tackle specific health, safety and societal issues.  In the U.S. the National Nanotechnology Initiative has consolidated federal approaches to addressing environmental health and safety concerns, and research into human health and environmental impacts of nanotechnologies has increased.  National and international initiatives have brought stakeholders together to explore the development of responsible nanotechnologies.  Standards organizations have been galvanized into writing whole rafts of nanotech reports, guidelines and technical standards.  Awareness has grown over the need to engage the developers and users of nanotechnology-enabled products on the development of emerging technologies.  And moves have been made toward tighter regulation of new nanomaterials in Europe and the U.S.

And, most importantly, no one to our knowledge has been harmed from being exposed to new engineered nanomaterials.

Yet despite all this activity, it’s harder to pin down how much concrete progress has been made.  If the RS/RAE report was published in its current form today, it’s assessment and recommendations would be as relevant as they were five years ago.  A few things have changed over the past five years—the original report didn’t predict the widespread use of nanoscale silver in consumer products for instance, and it shied away from describing increasingly complex developments in nanoscience that are now beginning to translate into viable technologies.

But many of the top-line recommendations in the 2004 report would not be out of place in a 2009 assessment of nanotechnology opportunities and challenges.

Some of the recommendations made by the RS/RAE tackled issues that would never be resolved overnight.  In these cases, it’s not surprising that more still needs to be done.  For instance, life cycle assessments, workplace exposure, developing appropriate measurement methods and engaging the public on emerging technologies, are all areas that will most likely remain important for decades.

In other areas, it’s harder to understand why progress has dragged so.  The U.K. is still lacking a dedicated interdisciplinary center for nanomaterial risk research for example, leaving industry and government decision-makers without a strategically important resource for filling key knowledge gaps.  And research into the potential impacts of carbon nanotubes—highlighted as a critically important issue in the report—has been hampered by a disregard for the RS/RAE recommendations by research funders.

In some cases, actions have been taken that fly in the face of the RS/RAE recommendations.  A recent paper in Environmental Health Perspectives highlighted 45 sites around the world where unbound nanoparticles are being released into the environment for groundwater and soil remediation (a map of the locations is available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/remediation_map/)—in spite the RS/RAE panel recommending that until more is known about their environmental impact, “the use of free nanoparticles in environmental applications such as remediation of groundwater be prohibited.”

But reading through the original report, what strikes me more than anything is how the clarity that the RS/RAE brought to thinking about the responsible development of emerging technologies has been lost.

Over the past five years there have been endless discussions, workshops, reviews and reports on the responsible development of nanotechnology.  In many cases, they demonstrate a disturbingly pre-2004 understanding of the issues.  It’s as if the RS/RAE report is viewed as a landmark, but not a beacon—everyone knows about it, but no one takes the time to read (or re-read) it.

A few weeks ago, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills in the U.K. – BIS – launched a public consultation to inform the Government’s strategy for nanotechnology.  It’s a good idea, and should help the U.K. develop a clear roadmap for developing responsible and successful nanotechnologies.  But it’s ironic that five years after the RS/RAE provided the government with clear advice on what was needed to develop safe nanotechnologies, the occasion is being marked by yet another review.

It’s moves like this that make me wonder whether, despite all the action following publication of the RS/RAE report, there hasn’t been that much progress.

But there is a more serious issue here.  Engineered nanomaterials—which were the primary focus of the RS/RAE report—represent one technology innovation out of many that are likely to emerge over the coming decades.  Scientific knowledge, and the technologies it spawns, are increasing at a geometric rate.  The opportunities and challenges these emerging technologies will present are likely to bear scant resemblance to those experienced in the twentieth century—we are already seeing this in areas like nanotechnology, synthetic biology and information technology.  Yet we seem stuck in a rut, attempting to manage 21st century technologies with a 20th century mindset.

The RS/RAE report pointed the way towards changing this mindset and grappling with new challenges in new ways—ways that brought people together in partnerships to proactively grasp new opportunities while preempting and managing emerging risks.  It provided a template for how to develop emerging technologies responsibly.

Nanotechnologies have had a fairly easy ride so far.  Public awareness remains low. Progress has been incremental and often below the radar.  And no one has died—yet.  We may not be so lucky with the next new technology to come along.  Unless we learn from and build on the broader lessons of the 2004 Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report, we could find ourselves facing opportunities and challenges we are ill-equipped to deal with.

The full retrospective on 5 years after the Royal Society/Royal Acvademies of Engineering Nanotechnologies Report can be found here.

Part 7 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Yesterday, I listened to respected economists discussing geoengineering; gave a Skype interview on nanotechnology from the comfort of my own home; and watched as reactions to Michael Jackson’s death spread through virtual web-based communities.  Twenty years ago, when Jackson was at the height of his artistic powers, such a day would have been the stuff of science fiction.  Now, it’s just business and usual.

Looking back over the past two decades, it’s easy to see how Coupling, Communication and Control have changed the world we live in.  The impact of CFC’s on the ozone layer, the looming global warming crisis and the associated acidification of oceans are all testaments to how recent human actions are increasingly coupled to global environmental re-actions.  Technological advances built on the back of our increasing control over matter – whether living or non-living – have led to profound changes in what we can achieve as a species.  And the global communications revolution – from the rise of the internet to the emergence of social media – continues to bend previously rigid social, commercial and geographical boundaries.

Yet important as the changes associated with each of these individual “C’s” are, it is at their intersection that their true transformative nature is revealed.  This is where ideas and influences spark off each other, leading to transformative leaps in innovation and impact…

To some extent we’re seeing this already.  Modern global communications wouldn’t be possible without a whole raft of technological breakthroughs.  Our impact on the environment is driven as much by our technologies and associated resource demands as by a growing world population, while solutions to the resulting consequences are technology-driven more often than not.  And worldwide responses to global issues are being facilitated by increasingly sophisticated communications media.

As the overlap and integration between each of the three “C’s” grows, the rate of innovation is likely to accelerate.  Yet the place where the really transformative stuff will occur is going to be at the center – at the confluence of advances in Coupling, Communication and Control.  This is where we can expect game-changing innovations that make the impossible possible.  It’s also where we are likley to see new technologies and ideas emerge that are potentially beyond our collective ability to handle with any degree of maturity.

And this brings us to the key science and technology-driven challenge we face as we head further into the twenty first century:  How are we going to handle the powerful and transformative new opportunities and dangers arising from this confluence of coupling, communication and control, without messing things up?

In contrast to the rapid developments likely at this nexus of the three “C’s,” the inertia inherent in established institutions and ideas will resist change.  And so unlike some, I don’t think we will  adapt naturally to the challenges that are coming. Yet the result of ignoring them, assuming they are someone else’s problem, or trying to shoehorn them into outmoded ways of doing business, will most likely be social, economic and political collapse.

The alternative is to take a long hard look at what needs to be done in order to ride the coming wave rather than be engulfed by it.  From twenty years ago, today’s world would look familiar yet different.  Given the current rate of change, I suspect that the world twenty years  from now will be unrecognizable.  If we’re going to cope with the changes that are coming, we will need to learn how to change with them.  And one of the first places to start will be the policies that guide the science and technology that are driving – and will help navigate – this confluence of coupling, communication and control.

Next time: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Nanoscale control: Leveraging biology

Next: Riding the wave: Rethinking science & technology policy

This month’s issue of the magazine Science & Technology takes a closer look at some of the controversies, dilemmas and decisions that will impact on the future development of the science and technology of working at the nanoscale.  Amongst the commentaries is a short piece I wrote about the importance of safety in underpinning successful and beneficial nano-enabled technologies:

Science & Technology, June 2009, Page 66

Over the past few years, scientists and engineers have made huge strides in their ability to manipulate materials at the nanometer scale.  Tapping into novel properties that emerge when substances are engineered at the nanoscale, they have begun to push conventional technologies further than was previously thought possible.  And with this new-found dexterity, they are beginning to develop innovative new technologies that were unimaginable not so long ago.  The result is a rapidly emerging toolkit of scientific knowledge and technical expertise that could have profound economic and social impacts around the world; creating jobs and wealth while addressing challenges that range from disease treatment and prevention to renewable energy and clean water.

As with any new technology, however, the promise of nanotechnology comes at a price. When materials are engineered at the scale of atoms and molecules they can behave in unconventional ways—in effect, the rules that apply to non-nanoscale materials begin to break down.  This is what makes the technology so powerful.  But it raises the possibility of products that can also cause harm in unconventional ways, which may not be captured by the usual approaches to dealing with human health and environmental risks.  Unless these unconventional risks are understood and addressed, the future of nanotechnology could be dogged by uncertainties over safety and dwindling public trust.

Not every product of nanotechnology will present unconventional risks.  But if a nanoscale substance can get to places in the body or the environment that are normally inaccessible, and is able to elicit a response following exposure that is influenced by shape and form at nanometer dimensions, new questions need to be asked on how harmful the substance is and how it can be used safely.  Five years ago, these concerns were raised by the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.  Since then, numerous reports have reiterated and expanded on the challenges being faced to developing safe nanotechnologies.  Sadly, there has been substantially more talk than action.

Fortunately, there have been no documented cases of harm arising from exposure to engineered nanomaterials.  But an increasing body of research indicates that some of these materials are potentially harmful if used without due care.  Yet information is still lacking on what constitutes “due care” in many cases—especially with highly novel substances such as carbon nanotubes.  And while global research into the potential health impacts of engineered nanomaterials is increasing, it still falls far short of what is needed to underpin evidence-based decision-making.

Recently, the US National Academies of Science called for a national research strategy for nanotechnology risk research, drawing on the expertise and perspective of multiple stakeholders.  Coupled with adequate funding, such an approach could help bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers in developing safe nanotechnologies. Yet at the end of the day, even the best risk research strategies will not be of much use if the end users are suspicious of nanotechnology.

Experiences with genetically modified organisms have demonstrated the power of public opinion in determining whether a new technology succeeds or not.  And while the similarities between nanotechnology and GMOs may be slim, it is clear that in today’s hyper-connected world, consumers have an increasingly strong voice.  As a result, it is not sufficient to ensure the safety of nanotechnology-based products; public trust in the technology and the ability of government and industry to manage it safely must also be nurtured.

In many ways nanotechnology is a test-case for other emerging technologies.  Countries and economies around the world are increasingly dependent on technology innovation.  Yet the rules governing success are changing; driven by rapidly evolving global communications, ever-more pressing social and economic challenges, and an increasingly complex knowledge-base.  Proactive risk research and public engagement are key not navigating through this changing landscape.  Get them wrong and we face lost opportunities.  But get them right and there is a chance that nanotechnology—and other emerging technologies—will deliver what they promise.

Originally published in Science & Technology Issue 3, June 2009, pp 66-67

Download the original article [PDF, 312 KB]

This afternoon, a riveting and possibly ground-breaking conversation evolved in real time on the social media platform Twitter.  Yesterday, writer and broadcaster Colin Stuart (@skyponderer on Twitter) raised concerns about the new dual-role of UK Science Minister Lord Drayson – Drayson has just been made Minister of Defense Procurement as part of Gordon Brown’s reshuffle, on top of his duties as Minister of Science.  His comment was picked up by PD Smith, an author and reviewer for the Guardian newspaper, and re-tweeted.  Things might have ended there.  But Lord Drayson himself jumped into the conversation earlier today.  And so began a fascinating exchange between Drayson – a regular presence on Twitter – and a number of other Twitter users.

Lord Drayson - UK Minister of Science, Minister of Defense Procurement, and founder of Drayton Racing. Image: Daily Mail

Both Sophia Collins at “I am a scientist. Get me out of here” and PD Smith have blogged on the exchange – read Smith for a concise account of the discussion, and Collins for a more complete rundown of the tweets. .. Looking through the succession of 140 character (or less) messages, this was clearly not a deep debate, nor one that led to marked changes in perspective.  But where it scored significantly was in the level of accessibility, transparency and engagement demonstrated by Lord Drayson.

Quoting PD Smith:

I have to admit I was surprised. Actually that’s a serious understatement. I sat in front of the screen for a few minutes wondering if I was seeing things. Don’t Her Majesty’s ministers of state have more urgent matters to attend to than dealing with comments on Twitter by authors? Perhaps it was a practical joke? A fake Lord perhaps?

Here was a senior minister engaging fully with members of the public on science policy.  And doing so without (as far as I could tell) being patronizing, unapproachable or stand off-ish.

The result was a clear demonstration of how emerging platforms like Twitter can help increase the level of engagement between decision-makers and the people impacted by their actions.

Of course, there are plenty of kinks still to be ironed out with how Twitter is best used to connect people in important ways.  Will we simply see increasingly sophisticated spin promoted under the banners of “engagement” and “transparency?”  How will PR folks manage the new accessibility?  Is engaging on Twitter less than inclusive?  Can you really have engagement in 140 character bites?  And what happens when everyone and their dog (or cat) realizes that important people are merely a tweet away?

But despite these questions, today’s conversation demonstrated that Twitter can provide a powerful platform for bringing publics and decision-makers together.  And I suspect that it goes further than this; whether we are talking engaging in policy or engaging in science, the platform enables interactions that it’s hard to imagine happening otherwise.

In this sense, Twitter is becoming the global equivalent of the local pub – where social hierarchies are less important than what you say, and how you say it.

Irrespective of the issues discussed, my sense is that Lord Drayson acquitted himself well today by being willing to converse with folk on Twitter.  And while no serious issues may have been put to bed, at least they had an airing and people were given a voice. What remains to be seen is whether others learn to use this and similar forums in a similar way and engage with others – whether on politics, science, or any other area that directly affects people.

I guess time and tweets will tell.

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/06/09/science-ministers-question-time/feed/ 6 http://2020science.org/2009/05/21/nanotechnology-safety-research-funding-on-the-up/ http://2020science.org/2009/05/21/nanotechnology-safety-research-funding-on-the-up/#comments Thu, 21 May 2009 19:00:03 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1617

The unthinkable has happened!  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is poised to get $5 million in crisp new dollars for researching possible workplace risks arising from nanotechnology.  It may not sound like a big deal.  But believe me—it is…

Back in 2005, NIOSH spent $3 million on nanotechnology risk research—scraped together from various internal sources.  It wasn’t a lot, but it allowed the agency to begin chipping away at a growing problem—how to work safely with the increasingly unusual materials coming out of nanotechnology.  Since then, NIOSH has been doing an annual loaves and fish trick—pushing meager internal funds further than they had any right to go in the pursuit of safer workplaces.

But even with inspired leadership and a smart bunch of researchers, $3 million a year was never enough to cover all of the research needed to underpin safe nanotech workplaces.  Back in 2005, we didn’t know how to measure exposure to nanomaterials, how toxic the new materials being produced were, how to prevent exposure, or how to work with and dispose of the materials safely.  Despite some excellent research, we are still a long way from answering these questions—which makes things tough for the producers, users and regulators of nanotechnology-related products.

Of course, the burden for filling in the knowledge gaps doesn’t lie solely on NIOSH’s shoulders.  Other federal agencies are filling in some of the unknowns under the auspices of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  And collaborations with research partners around the world are helping leverage the limited funds that are available.

Nevertheless, NIOSH is the lead US agency when it comes to underpinning safe workplaces through sound research.  And so far it hasn’t had the resources necessary to do the job when it comes to nanotechnology.

Over the past five years, annual funding for nanotechnology risk research has increased within the agency—it was up to $7 million last year.  But this has always been achieved through redirecting internal funds.  Despite the US Government investing around $1.5 billion per year on nanotechnology research, not a drop of new money has gone NIOSH’s way.

Until now.  Maybe it’s the new administration.  Maybe people are eventually waking up to the fact that successful nanotechnology depends on safe workplaces.  Either way, NIOSH is scheduled to receive $5 million in new funding for nanotechnology risk research next year—bringing the total nanotech research budget to $12 million.

Of course, it isn’t enough to do everything that is necessary.  Even my lowest estimates suggest that the agency need an additional $10 million per year to make significant inroads into the research backlog here.

But it is a major step in the right direction.

That’s not the only good news though.  Browsing through the NNI’s Supplement to the President’s Budget for 2010 [PDF, 3.4MB], a number of agencies will be increasing spending on nanotechnology risk research next year.  Most significantly, the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST) will be investing an additional $3 million, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) an additional $7 million.  Overall, the projected budget for nanotechnology risk research for 2010 is $88 million—$16 million up on this year.

This is great news.  But I do need to add a caveat.  The NNI figures have always tended to encompass research that is relevant to addressing safety concerns, but isn’t necessarily directly focused on the type of research that is needed (this discrepancy was highlighted most recently in a National Academies of Science report).  And so there is a chance that not every dollar in that $88 million will go directly to ensuring the safer use of nanotechnology-related products.

Nevertheless, I am cautiously optimistic that a larger proportion of the funding will be directly relevant to understanding and minimizing risks in 2010.   Funding increases for NIOSH, NIH, NIST and the US Environmental Protection Agency will all directly contribute to a better understanding of potential risks.  And a large chunk of National Science Foundation funding in this area is already tied up in two research centers specifically focused on environmental impacts.

There is still a long way to go if US government-supported research is to get us to where we need to be with developing safe nanotechnologies.  In addition to funding, there is still a need for increased stakeholder involvement in mapping out research directions and a stronger research strategy.

But it seems that under the new administration things are at least moving in the right direction.

And while an additional $5 million for NIOSH may seem a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things, it is a major step forward to protecting one of the more vulnerable groups when it comes to engineered nanomaterials—the people making and using the stuff.

50 years on, have we missed the point of C.P. Snow’s “Two-cultures?”

50 years ago, long before Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme,” the British scientist, public figure and novelist Charles Percy Snow planted an idea into the collective consciousness that has since grown to have a profound influence on science and the arts in Western society. Sadly, it wasn’t the idea he necessarily wanted to plant. So while the relevance of Snow’s “two cultures”—representing the divide between the scientific and literary elite of the day—has been debated and deconstructed ad infinitum over the intervening decades, Snow’s real passion—tackling material poverty through science and technology—has largely been ignored…

In 1963, Snow wrote a follow-on piece to the 1959 lecture.  In “Two cultures: A second look” C.P. Snow addressed the concerns of his many critics.  But he also took the opportunity to clarify and expand on what he was trying to convey four years earlier.  Freed from the constraints of crafting a short and somewhat simple public lecture, he wrote compellingly on science’s place in society, and the absolute necessity of using it for the social good—something he only saw the cultural divides around him obstructing.

In the opening sections of the 1963 essay Snow addresses his critics directly, which he does with humility and wit.  But by section five he begins to get to the heart of his true passion for science and technology:

“We cannot know as much as we should about the social conditions all over the world.  But we can know, we do know, two most important things.  First we can meet the harsh facts of the flesh, on the level where all of us are, or should be, one.  We know that the vast majority, perhaps two-thirds, of our fellow men are living in the immediate presence of illness and premature death; their expectation of life is half of ours, most are under-nourished, many are near to starving, many starve.  Each of these lives is afflicted by suffering, different from that which is intrinsic in the individual condition.  But this suffering is unnecessary and can be lifted.  This is the second important thing which we know—or, if we don’t know it, there is no excuse or absolution for us.”

Snow acknowledged that there is more to the human condition than mere material needs.  But he argued that this does not release us from the obligation to address those needs—his “hard facts of the flesh”—nor the fact that science and technology provide the means to do this.  He pushes this point home:

“We cannot avoid the realization that applied science has made it possible to remove unnecessary suffering from a billion individual human lives—to remove suffering of a kind, which, in our own privileged society, we have largely forgotten, suffering so elementary that it is not genteel to mention it.”

This gets to the very heart of the essay, and the intended thrust of the 1959 lecture.  So much so that he admits “Before I wrote the [1959] lecture I thought of calling it “The Rich and the Poor”, and I rather wish that I hadn’t changed my mind.”

From here, Snow begins to tackle the myth of the “ennobling” nature of suffering—the idea that suffering strengthens a person, and to interfere in the “natural order” of “master and man” is to do those who suffer a disservice.  Snow is ruthless in his attack on those supporting this position—many of them, in his eyes, amongst the comfortably off cultural elite “who have climbed one step up and are hanging on by their fingernails.”

Just as ruthlessly, he exposes the romantic myth of life being better before science and technology shook things up. Quoting J.H. Plumb he writes:

“No one in his sense would choose to have been born in a previous age unless he could be certain that he would have been born into a prosperous family, that he would have enjoyed extremely good health, and that he could have accepted stoically the death of the majority of his children.”

Rather, he writes

“It seems to me better that people should live rather than die: that they shouldn’t be hungry: that they shouldn’t have to watch their children die.”

From Snow’s perspective, attempts to justify the status quo and look back at “better times” were misguided and divisive, often reflecting the attitudes of the wealthy who could afford to romanticize suffering.  Rather, the solution he saw to satisfying society’s material needs was—and had to be in his eyes—science.  Without the scientific revolution, the only alternative was a divided society where a suffering majority supported an affluent minority—a concept Snow clearly found abhorrent.

And as a consequence, anything which impeded the successful development and implementation of science in society needed to be addressed head-on.

In 1959, Snow saw the chasm between the scientific and intellectual elite as one such impediment.  It was a problem unique (from his perspective) to the British establishment, and arose from an education system that inhibited understanding between these worlds and, as a consequence, weakened the ability of science to be used for the social good. This was the thinking behind the public lecture he delivered on May 7 1959 in Cambridge England.

Fifty years on, a lot has changed.  Approaches to education are different.  There is extensive and productive cross-talk between the science and the arts.  And national and global cultures have evolved.  Yet the central problem Snow faced remains: we live in a world divided into the rich and the poor; where the majority of people don’t have access to necessary material needs—food, water, shelter, medical treatment; where science and technology are increasingly able to bridge this divide, if only they were used effectively.  The unfortunate irony is that, by using the two cultures as a light to illuminate the problems facing society, Snow ended up creating a smokescreen that has, if anything, helped to obscure them.

The reality is that Snow’s 1959 lecture and 1963 essay are even more relevant now than they were 50 years ago—not because of the culture issues they address, but because in a society that is increasingly dependent on science and technology, we still haven’t got a good grasp on how to use them to make life better for the poor as well as the rich.

Sadly, the two cultures meme is a powerful one—witness the editorials, publications and events surrounding this 50th anniversary of the 1959 lecture.  But perhaps now’s time to put it aside and start talking about what’s really important, not just what we think is important.  Because if you look forward through the next 50 years, we have some pretty large global challenges rolling our way that aren’t going to be solved by talking about cultural differences alone.

Just in case anyone wasn’t clear, President Obama blew away any residual doubts this morning that he considers science and technology supremely important to the future well-being of the US.  In a stirring and historic speech to the National Academies of Science (audio recording available here),  Obama laid out his vision for a nation leading the world in science and technology, not following it.