report
2.6 Conclusions

The philosophical debate on responsibility in technological choices started around 1979, when it became clear to philosophers that modern science and technology enabled humankind to damage the biosphere on earth. Philosophers are currently discussing the concepts moral, role and collective responsibility. This discussion includes the questions whether responsibility can be ascribed to individuals in corporate organisations: what is the responsibility of members of unstructured groups such as white males or nationals of a particular country; and difficulties of ascribing responsibility to national states.

Since around 1992, the precautionary principle has been playing a role in global and European discussions on handling uncertain risks including risks of engineered nanomaterials. There is still not one commonly accepted definition of precaution, and not everyone sees a need for a precautionary approach. Alternatives including stakeholder engagement and applying principles like “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” and “Best Available Control Technology” have also been proposed.

Sustainability is again a multidimensional concept, open to different interpretations. The most authoritative definition is the one proposed by the Brundtland commission: “To meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainable development of nanotechnology requires more future oriented Technology Assessment and Life Cycle Analysis. Some authors focus on environmental sustainability, whereas others also want to include social sustainability. Achieving sustainability requires participation of a wider range of societal actors. A useful concept is responsible or sustainable governance of nanotechnology. The IRGC started a debate on risk governance of nanotechnology in 2005, distinguishing frame I risks of passive nanostructures requiring traditional risk assessment; and frame II, more complex risks, requiring concern assessment as well as risk assessment. The subsequent discussion focused on timing and classification of different risks and the roles of different stakeholders in governance of nanotechnology.

Several organisations, including the European Commission, have proposed codes of conduct for nanotechnology. Such voluntary codes are a form of soft law, which may in the future play a role in European court cases against companies manufacturing products with nano inside if these products have caused damage. In this sense they can be seen as an interim risk governance measure in a stage where it is not possible to introduce or adapt formal legislation due to uncertainty. Some codes including the European Commission code also plays a role in international debate on responsible nanotechnology development between governments. In that sense they may help avoid trade conflicts by stimulating the development of common norms and standards in a dialogue process.

In the draft ObservatoryNano reports on technical and economic trends in nanotechnology, a number of ethical and societal issues have been identified, including: governance issues; innovation and intellectual property issues; precaution, risk and dual use issues; and global justice issues. These issues are related to choices in the research, development, application, and market entry of nanotechnology and its products and are therefore covered in the present report. Other issues related to the trends in nanotechnology development discussed in those reports will be reviewed in later annual reports on Ethical and Societal Aspects of Nanotechnology produced in the ObservatoryNano project.

For governance issues, the scientific community, governments and industrialists have and are attributed most responsibility. Parliaments share in the governments’ responsibility as legislator, but as representatives of the people, they also have a role in public participation in decisions on priorities in research. This role could be made more visible. Some NGO’s including trade unions, environmental NGO’s, Patients organisations and church related organisations have made statements related to governance of nanotechnology, but so far these organisations have played a less prominent role in choices in nanotechnology research priorities than in the debate on precaution and potential risks. Media report on large investments in research, scientific breakthroughs and the risk debate, but not so much on strategic choices in research. According to some, the general public should play a more prominent role in decisions on research priorities, but this view is contested. In any case, most ordinary people don’t show much interest in nanotechnology.

Issues of precaution and risks receive most attention currently, and most stakeholders have or take some form of responsibility for it. Most responsibility for safety of workers and consumers is attributed to industrial companies, but the scientific community and governments also have major responsibilities, e.g. for risk assessment studies and for regulation and control. Parliaments and different types of NGOs are participating in debates on interpretations and practical implementation of the precautionary principle and of legislation. A new group entering the debate is formed by critical shareholders to companies expected to sell products with nano-inside. Regularly, the media report on the nanorisk debate. The general public again does not show much interest, but when asked, most people expect more benefits than risks from nanotechnology.

Dual use aspects are mainly discussed for (nano)biotechnology. Governments, the scientific community and companies are involved in it. Others don’t show much interest, except for some specialised NGOs.

In this report, we have limited the discussion of nano-justice issues to discussions of nanotechnology for poor people in developing countries. The UN Millennium Goals (2000) constitute the framework for the ongoing debate on this among experts and stakeholders. These Millennium Goals are primarily addressed to governments (and intergovernmental organisations including the EU). Several research projects aiming to develop “nanotechnology for the poor” are ongoing, and the EU as well as national governments are stimulating international research cooperation between scientists from North and South (as well as South-South cooperation). Scientists and companies participating in such cooperation or project do this voluntarily. Several NGOs and social scientists are contributing to the discussion on these and other nano-justice issues.

The discussion on intellectual property rights and nanopatents is emerging among experts. It appears that the emergence of interdisciplinary areas of research including nanotechnology shifts the balance of interests of different stakeholders inherent in the current system of intellectual property rights. Nanothickets and legal and economic problems related to cross licensing as well as conflicts between companies, researchers and people in developing countries are being discussed and several solutions proposed.

The European Commission has been involved in initiatives for responsible nanotechnology development at least since 2001, through conferences, a Commission Communication, Action Plan and Recommendation for a Code of Conduct, and through funding ELSA, EHS, public communication and international cooperation activities. These activities will continue. Some issues identified in this report may be given more attention by European policy makers in the future:

-         Several principles of the EC Code of Conduct (e.g. precaution, sustainability) are not well-defined and experts as well as stakeholders disagree on the interpretation and usefulness. The EC or international organisations might consider clarifying their interpretation of the terminology used;

-         Dual use aspects of nanotechnology in general (not only those covered by biosecurity legislation and codes of conduct) could be discussed and the issues not yet covered by existing policies highlighted. This could be stimulated by funding research on economic, legal, ethical and social aspects and by organising expert conferences to bring research results to the attention of policy makers;

-         A relatively new discussion on intellectual property rights could be stimulated more by funding research on economic, legal, ethical and social aspects and by organising expert conferences to bring research results to the attention of policy makers. A new EC funded IP project may bring forward this debate;

-         More stakeholder groups would like to be involved in decisions on research priorities than is currently the case. Pilot projects testing upstream engagement should be evaluated, their effectiveness analysed and best practices disseminated.

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this report was made possible through financial support of the European Union, ObservatoryNano project. Comments and suggestions from Donald Bruce, Mette Ebbesen, Arianna Ferrari, Guillermo Foladori, Donnie MacLurcan, Albert Nordmann, John Weckert and Gregor Wolbring and contributions to the questionnaire by seven persons are gratefully acknowledged. The contents of this report are the responsibility of the authors, and any opinions expressed can under no circumstances be attributed to the European Commission.

About ObservatoryNano

The observatoryNANO project is funded under FP7 for four years from April 1^st 2008.  Its primary aim is to support European decision-makers with information and analysis on developments in nanoscience and nanotechnology (N&N). It will collate and analyse data regarding scientific and technological (ST) trends (including peer-reviewed publications, patents, roadmaps, and published company data) and economic realities and expectations (including market analysis and economic performance, public and private funding strategies). The ST and economic analysis will be further supported by assessment of ethical and societal aspects, impacts on environment, health and safety, as well as developments in regulation and standardisation.  Although much of this work will be performed within the consortium, the project is working cooperatively with other initiatives to ensure that effort is not duplicated and that resource sharing and output are maximised.  To date liaisons have been established with international organisations including the EPO, OECD, and ISO, and will continue to be established with other relevant organisations such as European Technology Platforms (ETPs), ERA NETs, and other EU-funded projects.

The observatoryNANO project is led by the Institute of Nanotechnology (IoN) (UK), and includes: VDI Technologiezentrum (DE), Commissariat à l'énergie atomique (CEA) (FR), Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) (UK), Malsch TechnoValuation (MTV) (NL), triple innova (DE), Spinverse (FI), Bax and Willems Consulting Venturing (B&W) (ES), Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) (NL), Technical University of Darmstadt (TUD) (DE), Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca Industriale (AIRI) (IT), Nano and Micro Technology Consulting (NMTC) (DE), Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA) (CH), University of Aarhus (DK), MERIT - Universiteit Maastricht (NL), Technology Centre AS CR (CR).

For further information please contact the project coordinator Dr Mark Morrison (mark.morrison@nano.org.uk) or visit the project website: www.observatorynano.org

ObservatoryNANO is funded by the European Union under FP7.  Contract number 218528.