Abstract
Chemistry & Industry 25 January 2010
Comment
A communication quandry
If nanotechnology is to avoid the fate that befell GM crops
in Europe then regulators will need to be honest with the
general public about the risks & benefits, says Lynn Frewer
There is increasing investment in the private
and public sectors in innovative new products
underpinned by nanotechnology. Emerging
developments in nanotechnology are likely
to deliver profound benefits to human and
animal health, sustainable production and the
development of novel materials and production
processes. However, successful implementation
and commercialisation of nanotechnology
is contingent on societal acceptance of the
technology, and consumer responses to specific
applications. Societal acceptance is contextualised
by increasing societal debate about potential risks
and benefits associated with different applications
of nanotechnology and whether additional risk
assessments and regulations are required in order
to ensure that novel nanotechnology applications
are safe.
Research has shown that, in general, the
public are more tolerant of the potential risks
associated with medical applications of emerging
technologies, compared to other applications,
for example, in food production, personal care
products or novel materials development. People
are intolerant of even very small risks if they are not
perceived to be associated with personal benefits,
or if they are perceived as being uncontrollable by
those exposed to them.
Societal acceptance of the strategic
development, application and commercialisation
of nanotechnology is contingent on understanding
consumer perceptions of risk and benefit associated
with specific applications. Failing to address
societal concerns about an emerging technology
may result in public rejection of that technology
and its applications, as was indeed the case with
genetically modified (GM) foods in Europe and
some other regions of the world. In the case of GM
foods, the absence of tangible benefits associated
with the first generation of GM foods, in particular
those perceived to be desirable by consumers,
resulted in the consumer perception that the
benefits accrued to producers, whereas the risks
were shouldered by consumers. Unsurprisingly,
this contributed to widespread public rejection
of GM food products. In addition, the perceived
lack of consumer control over consumption of GM
foods, a direct consequence of regulators failing to
implement an effective labelling strategy for GM,
increased public negativity.
Increasingly, research into societal acceptance
of emerging technologies has focused on how
individuals make trade-offs between perceived
risks and benefits, for example, to human health,
the environment and social and economic factors.
Communication about emerging applications of
nanotechnology needs to take account of how
risks, as well as benefits associated with the
technology and its applications, may vary between
different individuals. This information needs to
be taken into account when developing and
marketing products as well.
In addition, the issue of uncertainty regarding,
for example, the health impact of engineered
nanoparticles (ENP) may increase negative
consumer perceptions. For instance, evidence that
bioaccumulation of such particles in specific parts
of the body, such as myocardial or neural tissues,
raises the question of whether this affects health.
A case in point, a recent publication in Nature
Nanotechnology may raise particular societal
concerns. The focus of the research was on
nanomedicine and implied that, firstly, proximity
to ENP may cause DNA damage, independent
of any direct cellular exposure to nanoparticles.
This raises many issues associated with scientific
uncertainty and unintended consequences, which
may be unacceptable to some members of the
public. The concept of ‘DNA damage’ is likely to be
perceived as very risky. The scientific findings may
not only heighten public safety concerns about
nanotechnology, but increase risks perceived
to be associated with other nanotechnology
applications in, for example, the agri-food and
cosmetic sectors.
Public demand for appropriate, and potentially
novel, risk assessment methodologies, together
with associated regulatory frameworks, may
result from research findings such as these.
Appropriate responses to such public demands
on the part of industry and regulatory institutions
are thus becoming more urgent. A proactive risk
management strategy is required. In particular,
the public are likely to be reassured if they perceive
that an appropriate strategy for the assessment
of the risks of engineered nanoparticles is being
implemented, and this is communicated to
interested stakeholders, including the general
public. Such an assessment and communication
strategy must address any uncertainties, such
as those reported in the article, if public trust in
regulatory bodies and industry is to be developed
and maintained. Even if public priorities are not
identical to those addressed in technical risk
assessments, risk communication must address
these.
One of the problems with communication
about GM foods was that the messages focused
on the concept of ‘substantial equivalence’. In
other words, that the new foods were the same
as, and as safe as, conventional foods, given
that they demonstrate the same characteristics
and composition. Research shows that consumer
concerns focus on perceptions that GM foods are
unnatural, but this was not addressed in industry
and governmental communications about them.
Finally, there is extensive discussion regarding
the use of public engagement in the policy
processes associated with emerging technologies.
The assumed advantages include, among others,
regaining societal trust in policy makers and
societal acceptance of decisions associated with
policy development and implementation, including
technology acceptance. Public engagement in the
strategic development of nanotechnology may
only improve citizen confidence if there is an
explicit willingness on the part of the regulatory,
scientific and industrial community to re-specify
direction and goals of research and development
based on the outcomes.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 27 |
Journal | Chemistry & Industry |
Volume | 2010 |
Issue number | 2 |
Publication status | Published - 2010 |