report
2.5 Analysis

 

In this chapter, responsibility issues identified in the technical trend reports and economic reports presented in chapter 4 are being analysed with the following questions:

-         Which stakeholder group are and are held responsible for which aspect of nanotechnology development? (Nanoscientists; Industrialists (large companies and SMEs); Government; Parliaments; Trade Unions; Consumer Associations; Environmental NGOs; Patient Associations; Churches; Media; General Public; Others)

-         How can each stakeholder group take its responsibility?

 

2.5.1 Choosing priorities in nanotechnology research

 

Choosing priorities in nanotechnology research is an issue in agricultural production, textiles, the construction sector and the environment (groundwater remediation).

 

Which stakeholder groups are currently responsible for choices in research priorities of nanotechnology?

 

In the present circumstances, decisions on priorities in research are taken in the “triple helix” of the scientific community, industry and government departments and agencies funding research.

 

In principle, governments are responsible for choices in research priorities for basic and application oriented research, as they fund most of this research either as basic funding for universities and research centres or as funding for competitive projects. However, in practice governments do not have the expertise in house to decide such priorities by themselves, and rely to a large extent on advice by leading researchers and industry. In some countries like the Netherlands, priority setting is left over to “the field” (research community and industry) on purpose.

 

The scientific community is responsible for choices of priorities in nanoscience and its applications. Part of the government budget for research is at the discretion of universities, part is distributed via funding councils who determine priorities after expert consultation and in peer review processes, and part comes from external sources including industry. For nanoscientists, internal academic credentials including numbers of publications and citations remain a strong incentive for their work, but they also have to take into account industrial priorities.

 

Industrialists (large companies and SMEs) are responsible for choices in research priorities in case they participate in public-private research projects, fund research in universities or public research centres as well as for in-house research. It depends on the national (or EU) research policy how much influence they have in practice on priorities in nanoresearch. In the EU framework programmes, large companies and SMEs can participate as partners in EU funded projects. Large companies also play leading roles in European Technology Platforms where long term strategies for European research have been developed. E.g. the ETP Nanomedicine[1] is chaired by representatives of Philips and Siemens, and the ETP ENIAC[2] on nanoelectronics has a steering committee consisting of representatives of chipmakers, equipment suppliers, users, research organisations, EUREKA, the Commission and public authorities.

 

Parliaments are responsible for regulating nanotechnology, as the legislative power in government. But as elected representatives of the people, parliamentarians are also mandated to discuss strategic choices regarding investments of public funds, including in science, technology and innovation.

 

Which stakeholder groups are not currently responsible for choosing priorities in nanotechnology research, but would like to be involved?

 

Trade Unions are responsible for representing workers interests including in occupational health and safety at work. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) represents over 60 million workers, members of 82 trade unions in 36 European countries[3]. ETUC and several national trade unions have developed positions on nanotechnology in the EU funded NanoCAP project and published them in 2008[4]. They participate in dialogue on priorities in nanotechnology research, and have proposed to invest at least 15% (European level) or even 30% (Dutch FNV) of the budget for nanotechnology research in risk assessment.

 

Environmental NGOs like Greenpeace UK see opportunities for environmental applications of nanotechnology. (Arnall, 2003) The Dutch Animal Rights organisation AVS Proefdiervrij pleads for developing applications of nanotechnology in alternative toxicity tests for animal testing[5].

 

Patient Associations are currently not so visible in the dialogue on nanotechnology priorities, but in the past, Mary Baker of the European Parkinson Disease Association EPDA has participated in discussions on nanomedicine. The Dutch Genetic Alliance VSOP and the Biotechnology and Genetics Forum have expressed interest in stakeholder input in the discussion on nanotechnology (Hanssen et al, 2008). Patients may welcome medical applications of nanotechnology and be concerned about potential health risks.

 

Some Church-related organisations have already published statements or discussion documents on nanotechnology. E.g. an advisory committee of the Evangelical Church in Germany EKD pleads for responsible nanotechnology development, and has analysed anthropological and ethical principles from a protestant Christian perspective. They would like to participate in public dialogue. (Kordecki, Knüppel, Meisinger, 2007) The Church of Scotland’s Society Religion and Technology project has been engaged in debates on ethics of nanomedicine for years[6]. COMECE, representing European (Catholic) Bishops Conferences to the European Community, has published an opinion of their Bioethics group (2007) on nanomedicine, also pleading for public dialogue. The World Council of Churches has published a discussion document on converging technologies (Lee & Robra, 2005).

 

Marginalised populations and poor people of the South are also not currently engaged in decision making on priorities in nanotechnology research, except in some pilot projects, e.g. on nanotechnology for water purification organised by DEMOS (UK) and Meridian Institute (USA). Gregor Wolbring (direct communication) is concerned that they are not seen as a group that should be involved in governance.

 

Which stakeholder groups are held responsible for choices in research priorities for nanotechnology and which are not?

 

Young people in Europe think scientists have a large responsibility for societal consequences of their work, and many of them think the scientific community or research organisations should influence choices in science and technology. But scientists are not the only ones expected to decide on priorities in research. A higher percentage of young people think citizens should be most influential and many think governments and the European Union should be most influential. Only a few percent of European young people think industry should have high influence on choices in science and technology (Gallup, 2008, see chapter 3).

Parliaments are often seen merely as part of governments, as the legislative power, and responsibility for choices in research priorities is not commonly attributed to them.

Media publish about nanotechnology issues with news value, including large investments in research, scientific breakthroughs and the risk debate. More strategic developments in research policy and priorities in research don’t tend to get a lot of media attention. Only a few percent of young Europeans think the media should be influential in priorities in research. (Gallup, 2008, see chapter 3)

The General Public is not currently engaged in discussions on priorities in nanotechnology research. According to several Eurobarometer surveys, a high percentage of Europeans is not even aware that nanotechnology exists (56% of the general public in 2005, 34% of young people in 2008). Many stakeholders who do participate in the nanodebate plead for larger public engagement. 44% of European young people want the general public to take first or second place in influencing technology development, but more than half of them are not interested in nanotechnology. (Gallup, 2008, see chapter 3) Arie Rip (2008) pointed out that stimulating direct democracy by greater public engagement in nanotechnology governance might undermine the current system of parliamentary democracy in Europe.

 

How can different stakeholder groups take their responsibility?

 

Nanoscientists are expected “To use their skill transparently relinquishing the idea of short term personal gain,” and “Governmental and/or strong financed institutions can take responsibility for nanotechnology development by dedicating considerable number of experienced workers with significant amount of money. These institutions should recruit young researcher to work for nanotechnology,” according to respondents to a short questionnaire on responsibility for nanotechnology.

On the other hand, the traditional system of scientific self-governance is challenged by social and human scientists, civil society actors and policy makers, who plead for upstream and midstream public engagement in decision making on choices in limited resources and the development of more robust future scenarios of technology and its societal consequences. Nanotechnology is one of the first areas of research where experiments with these engagement activities have been undertaken in cooperation with the nanoscientific community under pressure of funding bodies, since the beginning of the 21^st century. According to Arie Rip (2008), such engagement may lead to more reflectivity on choices in limited resources and better quality future scenarios.

 

 

Some researchers and industry representatives request governments to take more initiative, “orchestrating” a stakeholder engagement process. (e.g. Arie Rip, 2008) E.g. the European Commission has been taking initiatives for governing nanotechnology development including the action plan for nanotechnology (2005-2009) and the recommendation for a code of conduct for nanotechnology research (2008). Other governments in Europe and elsewhere are developing similar initiatives, some citing the EU activities as example to follow or improve. A respondent to a short questionnaire on responsibility for nanotechnology thought politicians were most responsible for nanotechnology development: “In my opinion, a serious burden to the development of a “responsible” nanotechnology is the lack of democracy in the decision-making on science policy. Furthermore, politicians entitled to take decisions are often not very well aware of the problems and complexities and they finish up to take only decisions as a compromise between the reasons of the so-called stakeholders, which are mainly industrialists and (less) different lobbies. Scientists cannot be very much involved in the decision-making. The biggest obstacles regard the entire decision-making process of science-policy.” Not everyone would agree to this view. Another respondent also thought government is most responsible, for “regulation, implementing a system of checks and balances and informing the public.”

 

Parliaments could take more initiative for decisions on the public budget including research in nanotechnology. E.g. the European Parliamentary Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ITRE is responsible for this. They participate in policy making on nanotechnology, not only through lawmaking, but also by discussing action plans, communications and other documents prepared by the European Commission and by adopting resolutions and asking questions.

 

2.5.2 Precaution, risk, dual use

 

Precaution, risk and dual use aspects are issues in agricultural production, textiles, the construction sector, security, the environment (groundwater remediation), Chemistry and materials and ICT (Displays). Dual use aspects are generally defined as moral or societal issues related to technologies with military as well as civil uses.[7]

 

Which stakeholder groups are currently responsible for a precautionary approach to nanotechnology?

 

The scientific community consists of different disciplines with distinct responsibilities for nanosafety and nanosecurity. Toxicologists and risk assessment specialists are responsible for scientific research to find evidence for potential hazards or exposure scenarios for nanomaterials. Bionanoscientists have to comply with codes of conduct for biosecurity[8] and strict government regulations governing dual use aspects of their research. In general, nanoscientists are responsible for implementing Good Laboratory Practices including guidelines for safe handling nanomaterials.

 

Industrialists are responsible for occupational health and safety and for the safety of their products. The same or stricter codes and legislation on safety and security for research apply as for scientists.

 

Governments and Parliaments are responsible for regulating market access of products, also those with made with nanotechnology, and for investing in risk research.

 

Different civil society groups are responsible for lobbying for a particular interest or issue with governments, parliaments and industry, and for influencing public opinion. Trade Unions should represent worker interests, consumer associations must represent consumer interests, environmental NGOs should plead for avoiding environmental risks of nanotechnology and for stimulating environmentally sustainable development of nanotechnology.

 

Which stakeholder groups are held responsible for a precautionary approach to nanotechnology?

 

In the current discussion on a precautionary approach to nanotechnology, there is no consensus on the responsibilities of different stakeholders. Apart from formal (legal) accountability, different stakeholders are calling upon other stakeholders to take their voluntary responsibility for governing uncertain risks.

Governments and NGO’s expect industrial companies to cooperate with authorities and submit results of risk assessment of nanomaterials. Members and committees of the European Parliament (EP) demand that the European Commission should take a much more proactive approach to regulation of nanomaterials, risk assessment, labelling, intellectual property issues and ethical guidelines.

 

How can different stakeholder groups take their responsibility?

 

Voluntary codes of conduct may function as an instrument for self-regulation of industry. Several companies have published their own company code of conduct for nanosafety, or are participating in stakeholder dialogue organised by the EC, governments or industry sector associations like CEFIC[9]. Some sectors are more open about their use of nanotechnology than other sectors. E.g. the food sector has a reputation of not being open enough about nanomaterials in food.

 

Currently, governments take responsibility by imposing existing regulations, adapting guidelines for implementing the regulations and through soft law including voluntary codes of conduct such as the EC code discussed in chapter 3. They discuss common standards and risk research programmes in international forums including OECD, the Food and Agricultural Organisation FAO and World Health Organisation WHO.[10]

 

Parliaments can put risk governance of nanotechnology on their agenda and amend legislative proposals or initiate legislation. E.g. the European Parliament (EP) is currently discussing a motion from the Environment Committee for a European Parliament resolution on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials, which demands that the European Commission should take a much more proactive approach to regulation of nanomaterials, risk assessment, labelling, intellectual property issues and ethical guidelines. (Schlyter, 2009) Earlier, the EP Environment Committee had expressed its concern “about the lack of specific legal provisions to ensure the safety of consumer products containing nanoparticles and the relaxed attitude of the Commission with regard to the need to review the regulatory framework for the use of nanoparticles in consumer products in light of the increasing number of consumer products containing nanoparticles being put on the market.” (European Parliament, 2008) In July 2008, the EP has also amended a proposed food additives regulation in second reading, making it obligatory to test food additives already allowed on the market under that regulation again after a significant change in particle size including the use of nanotechnology.

 

Trade Unions can lobby industry and governments asking for application of the precautionary principle. They can also lobby governments asking for regulation and law enforcement; and inform workers about best practices in nanosafety. E.g. the executive board of the European Trade Union Confederation ETUC adopted a resolution on nanotechnology in June 2008[11].

 

Consumer Associations can make statements aimed at influencing government and industrial policies. E.g. several consumer associations are pleading for labelling of consumer products with nano inside, to enable freedom of choice. They also want to be able to trust that unsafe products are not allowed on the market. Michael Hansen of the US Consumers Union (2008) listed consumer requirements for information and risk governance.[12] The European association of consumer associations BEUC and European Environment Bureau EEB propose to exclude products which contain manufactured nanomaterials and nanostructures which could be released into the environment from their proposed ecolabel. (EEB & BEUC, 2008) In BEUC’s work programme for 2009, they aim that the “EU takes concrete measures to address the protential risks of nanotechnologies in consumer products”, “awareness for need for measures to be put in place to provide for safe use of nanotechnology” in food, and “development and use by the EMEA of a specific risk-assessment methodology for nanomedicine.” (BEUC, 2009)

 

Environmental NGOs can express their concern about potential risks of nanotechnology. E.g. several environmental NGOs are pleading for application of the precautionary principle. Others are asking for moratoriums for application of free nanoparticles in certain types of consumer products (cosmetics, washing machines, food and food packaging). (See also EEB & BEUC, 2008) Friends of the Earth pleads for a moratorium on the further commercial release of food products, food packaging, food contact materials and agrochemicals that contain manufactured nanomaterials until nanotechnology-specific safety laws are established and the public is involved in decision making. (FOE, 2008)

 

In general, civil society groups can not only issue statements on nanotechnology, but also take legal action against policies or products they consider against the current legislation, or try to influence corporate policies by buying shares and filing motions during shareholder meetings. E.g. a broad international coalition of 69 NGOs and research organisations has not only published “Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials,” (Nanoaction, 2007), but has also filed a legal petition with the (US) Environmental Protection Agency EPA demanding it to stop the sale of consumer products incorporating nanosilver.[13]

Critical shareholders of companies who are expected to use nanotechnology in their products are getting involved by asking for openness on use of nanotechnology and potential nanorisks. Sanford Lewis and colleagues of the Investor Environmental Health Network IEHN (Lewis et al, 2008) argue that many companies, who use nanomaterials in their products, do not communicate adequately about potential risks to their shareholders. They recommend institutional and individual shareholders to ask for information about these issues. Pat Rizzuto (2009) reports that resolutions have been filed asking for disclosure of information on products in which nanomaterials are being used and the company’s policy on nanomaterials, for the annual meetings of Avon Products, Kellogg Company, Kraft Foods and McDonald Corporation. Apparently, NGOs are trying to stimulate a new group of stakeholders (shareholders) to take responsibility for nanotechnology.

 

2.5.3 Nano and the poor, justice

 

Considering the analysis of ObservatoryNano technical trend reports (chapter 4 above), justice issues including nano and the poor are relevant to nanotechnology applications in agricultural production, textiles, regenerative medicine and the construction sector.

 

In the international discussion on nano and the poor, the UN Millennium Goals are often cited as the framework for selecting relevant technologies and applications which can contribute to fighting poverty. In this section, these Millennium Goals are taken as guiding principles.

 

Which stakeholder groups are responsible for distributive justice of nanotechnology?

 

The EU and Governments are the addressees of and carry most responsibility for implementing the UN Millennium goals (2000)[14] which aim to halve poverty by 2015. Other groups including charities, academic groups and companies have also subscribed to the Millennium Campaign or are funding or carrying out relevant projects or cooperation activities.

 

Which stakeholder groups are held responsible for distributive justice of nanotechnology?

 

Industrialists (large companies and SMEs) are explicitly invited by the UN to join governments in a public-private partnership for development (UN Millennium Goal 8). NGO’s and individual citizens are calling upon governments to keep their promise.

 

How can different stakeholder groups take their responsibility?

 

The EU and Governments can invest part of their resources in nanotechnology in projects contributing to the UN Millennium Goals and stimulate R&D cooperation between researchers from their country and from developing countries. E.g. the EU has opened its Framework Programme for RTD to participants from “International Cooperation Partner Countries”: developing countries and emerging economies worldwide.

An example of relevant agricultural research policies: The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development has analysed trends in science and technology for agrofood including nanotechnology. “Integrated advances in nanotechnology, remote sensing, geographic information systems, global positioning systems and information and communication technology could provide opportunities for more resource-efficient and site-specific agriculture. [Chapter 6]” … “The potential for precision agriculture, ICTs, ecological production, nanotechnology and other emerging technologies to help advance development requires institutional development to create the conditions in which such technologies can generate opportunities for resource-poor producers in divers local conditions… [Chapter 3]” (IAASTD, 2008)

 

Nanoscientists can target their research towards applications which address the UN Millennium Goals. E.g. there are several projects and initiatives to develop nanotechnology for sustainable energy, clean water, therapies and diagnostics for infectious diseases, food security etc (e.g. Grimshaw & Stilgoe, 2006). There are also international research projects in which researchers from North and South cooperate on nanotechnology.[15]

 

Multinational companies could invest more in R&D in developing countries, thereby stimulating innovation and economic development in those countries as well as in the North.

 

Civil society groups could participate in the discussion on priorities in nanotechnology, pleading for targeting nanotechnology development to the needs of poor people in developing countries. Such groups could also fund nanotechnology projects addressed to the millennium goals and invest in research and innovation in developing countries (as charities or loans). Finally, they can participate in debates on implications of nanotechnology for developing countries.

E.g. Trade Unions, Environmental NGOs and social scientists from Latin America and working on international level are critical of the potential of nanotechnology to fulfil the needs of poor people in developing countries. They also tend to plead for strong interpretations of the precautionary principle[16]. ETC group and Meridian Institute have brought potential impact of nanotechnology on commodities markets in discussion (ETCgroup 2005).[17]

 

2.5.3.1 General nanojustice debate

 

Social scientists including Guillermo Foladori (personal communication) have proposed not to limit the debate on responsible nanotechnology to technological trends, but also to critically assess the current economic context in which nanotechnology is being developed. They criticise the concentration of production of nanotechnology and nanomaterials, and of nanopatents, in the hands of a small number of multinational companies, and expect that under these circumstances, nanotechnology can only increase the concentration of wealth on one side and inequality on the other. The solution pleaded for is to distinguish stakeholders with an interest in nanotechnology development from stakeholders without a say in decision making on nanotechnology, and empowering the latter. Gregor Wolbring also pleads for greater involvement of marginalised groups.

As has been discussed in section 5.1 above, there are several projects and initiatives aimed at upstream public or stakeholder engagement with nanotechnology, involving different collections of societal groups. Most of these initiatives can be considered pilot projects and as yet there is no coherent strategy to developing a common approach to broadening the circle of stakeholders involved in decision making on priorities in nanotechnology research.

 

2.5.4 Innovation, intellectual property

 

Innovation and intellectual property issues are relevant to nanotechnology applications in agricultural production and textiles.

Intellectual property rights for nanotechnology form an emerging issue in nanoethics. Anthony So and colleagues (2008) have critically analysed the effectiveness of the US Bayh-Dole patent law in promoting commercialisation of public funded research results, and derive recommendations for developing countries and emerging economies currently introducing legislation promoting patenting of publicly funded research. They warn for patent thickets obstructing research in multidisciplinary areas of research including nanobiotechnology. The authors recommend introducing a number of safeguards serving the public interest, including:

-         "No Exclusive Licensing Unless Necessary for Commercialisation;

-         Transparency;

-         Government Authority to Issue Additional Licenses;

-         Government Use Rights;

-         Access to End Products."

Clarkson and De Korte (2006) and Bawa (2007) have discussed the problem of patent thickets in nanotechnology ("nanothickets"). Patent thickets are bundles of patents on platform technologies or other inventions which are needed for continued research and development in areas like nanotechnology and biotechnology. This leads to a complex system of cross licensing and patent litigation, and hampers scientific progress and innovation rather than stimulating commercialisation of public research results.

Diana Bowman (2007) has analysed the role of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organisation in the development of nanotechnology. She foresees that early recognition of uncertainties will enable policy makers to achieve a more appropriate balance in IPR regulation for emerging areas like nanotechnology between the needs of commercial investors and innovation against the broader interests of society. The European Group on Ethics (2007) highlighted the need for debate on a more just balance between access to therapy and stimulating innovation in the case of Intellectual Property Rights for nanomedicine. UNESCO (2006) notes that a lack of scientific evidence makes it uncertain to identify risks or benefits from protecting intellectual property. They consider three controversies related to intellectual property of nanotechnology: over-liberal granting of patents, leading to a complex system of litigations and cross-licensing; new database laws, granting corporations ownership rights over facts; and the rise of "business-method" patents in information technology. The critical NGO ETC group has been campaigning against broad patents for nanotechnology, warning against patenting nature and potential detrimental effects for developing countries. (ETC group, 2005, Shand, 2003) Some commentators have suggested that the process of a nanotechnology patent 'landgrab' is coming to an end (partly because of the backlog of applications with the USPTO).