Last night I attended a seminar hosted by the Globalism Insititute at RMIT and Friends of the Earth on ‘Nanotechnology and the public interest: what are the key issues raised by the science of the small?’. It was a good forum to stimulate public debate - this seems to be essential for nanotechnology to progress both from innovation and public interest perspectives.
Steve Mullins from the ACTU talked about his engagement with Standards Australia and the work they are doing around toxicity and safety standards, so it was good to hear a different view on hazards and labelling. Georgia Miller from Friends of the Earth stressed the importance of public involvement in decision-making and a need for government committment to the responsible development of nanotechnologies.
For me, the complexity of the debate was summed up by Rob Sparrow, ethicist at Monash University who spoke of the distinction between ‘nanotechnology’ and ‘nanotechnologies’. Thinking about nanotechnology as a unique technology (by both supporters and opponents) is unsatisfactory . There are so many different technologies, different applications and different safety risks. Discussing the issue in its complexity allows us to make appropriate decisions about the sort of nanotechnologies we do want for our future.
Post a Comment