An article in Wednesdays Financial Times by Demos James Wisldon cautions that nanotech ought to listen to its public, and now. The opinion piece centres of thee appointment of Rob Doubleday, a sociologist, to the Nanoscience Centre at the University of Cambridge, help his colleagues reflect on the social and ethical implications of their research.
However the core argument that innovators must be willing to allow the findings of public dialogue to shape their work is a double edged sword. On one hand, the inclusion of Greenpeace and other environmental groups at nanotech conferences and the recent Royal Society report shows that this is already happening. While some elements of the scientific community maintain a traditional aloofness most are indeed open. On the other hand, responding to public dialogue raises even trickier questions about the fundamental nature of democracy. A subject as incomprehensible to the layman as nanoscience is open to hijacking by single issue campaign groups, playing on the publics ignorance to raise phantom fears. We are already seeing this, whether single issue environmental groups, investment pundits or the far end of the nanotechnology spectrum all playing on general ignorance to ram home their agendas.
So let’s have nanotech listen to its public, but at the same time, we have a responsibility to ensure that the public is well enough informed to understand the debate.