Penn State

Research: Nano and Society

The Societal Impact of the Nanotechnology Revolution

When new technologies are created, the societal implications, such as environmental impact, public perception, disruptions in the economy as old industries are replaced and workers displaced, are often ignored or left to market forces to determine. Fortunately, this has not been the case with the emerging science of nanotechnology. The subject of wide interest among government agencies; the source of white papers and conferences; and the topic of debates among watchdog groups, ethicists, and scientists, nanotechnology is also closely followed by industry and business leaders. The one group that is largely missing from the discussion is the general public, for whom nanotechnology is little known and even less understood.

In a 2004 survey conducted by North Carolina State University researchers under a grant from the National Science Foundation, more than 80% of respondents said that they had heard "little or nothing" about nanotechnology. The survey also showed that even though they had few concrete facts, 78% of the public felt that nanotechnology would produce either more benefits than risks, or about an equal amount of each. The one notable area of concern was a lack of trust in "business leaders' ability or willingness to minimize risks to humans." Sixty percent of those surveyed had "not much trust" in business leaders.

With no government safety regulations specific to nanotechnology now in place, and with more than 200 commercial nano products already in use, a lack of trust in business leaders could create a backlash against nanotechnology similar to Europe's negative reaction to genetically modified foods, or the US reaction to nuclear energy after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Safety is only one of many issues that arise in the discussion of societal implications of nanotechnology. Of great concern is how the benefits and risks of a new, powerful technology will be shared by rich and poor individuals as well as advanced technological and pre-technological nations. Will cheap solar power cells bring light and electricity to impoverished regions, or will the ability to create and market nano-improved products destroy the economies of non- nanotech enabled countries?

In 2006 alone, the NNI, the federal initiative to oversee funding for nano research, spent $82 million to study and address the societal, environmental, and health implications of nanotechnology. At Penn State, faculty and administrators such as nano scientist Akhlesh Lakhtakia, educational theorist Roger Geiger, economist Timothy Considine, and governmental specialist Paul Hallacher, are looking more deeply into the complex problems and remarkable possibilities of nanotechnology in society.

Summary of a Nano Survey by NC State University researchers
www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/04_07/211.htm

National Nanotechnology Initiative Societal Implications webpage
www.nano.gov/html/society/home_society.html

The 120-page report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop
www.nano.gov/nni_societal_implications.pdf

Roger Geiger's Public Impact of Nanotechnology web page
www.ed.psu.edu/cshe/nano/index.htm

A widely discussed dystopian look at the future of technology by Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.asp

Faculty: Nano and Society

TOP ^