The final phase of the UK’s nanotech study came on Wednesday, in the form of a public meeting. While there were some worries that the Royal Society would be besieged by Ruritanian peasants with flaming torches and pitchforks, the evening, though packed to the rafters, was generally good natured.
Nick Ross (best known for presenting BBC TV’s Crimewatch, although hopefully not needed to track down nnao criminals yet) hosted the panel discussion, which consisted of Ann Dowling, Deirdre Hutton, Doug Parr and Ian Pearson. In what we suspect was an attempt to remain neutral, none of the chosen panel actually worked in nanotechnology, but nevertheless a well-informed and intelligent debate in front of a packed house ensued.
The usual suspects raised the usual themes but the general consensus was that:
Certain nanoparticles may be toxic in certain forms, given sufficient exposure.
Nanoparticles form only a tiny subset of nanotechnologies.
More toxicology data (particularly on dispersible or free nanoparticles) is required. Specifically, instrumentation is required to measure exposure as well as inherent toxicity.
A requirement for the open sharing of toxicity data may serve as a strong disincentive to develop new materials. This hindrance may be lessened by establishing regulation at an international level-a level playing field.
As with any new technology which has the potential to be disruptive, public debate should occur upstream, before products hit the shops.
The ubiquitous nature of nanotechnology, which makes it particularly difficult for the public to get a handle on.
We cling to our view that rational intelligent people from any background can get a grip on nanotechnology and that it is possible for them to sit around a table and discuss it reasonably. Unfortunately, many of the groups that have latched on to nanotechnology are anything but rational, hence all the problems and the calls for everyone from Eric Drexler to Richard Smalley to be hung, drawn and quartered.