Nanotechnology regulation


The term ‘nanotechnology’ was used first to describe a way to manufacture something from atomic molecules (such as the food replicator in many science fiction films where one says, for example, “Coffee,” and the machine buildsand synthesizes the coffee molecule by molecule) (1).

However, the meaning of the term nanotechnology has since then evolved. Today, nanotechnology is used to mean ‘nanoscale technology’ and nanoscale sciences covering ‘nanotechnology’ research and development, products, ideas and processes with controlled size below 300nm.

These are just a few of the fields which could be listed as sciences and technologies with a nanoscale component or sub-section:

In the end nearly every science and technology field will have a nanoscale sub-section.

An evaluation and regulation of nanotechnology as a whole is impossible. Every nano field, process and product has to be evaluated differently as each poses distinct challenges and each has a unique dynamic.

However despite the to-be-expected pervasiveness of nano scale in nearly every field the discourse around nanotechnology regulation has barely started.

The Term “Nanotechnology Regulation” receives less or equal hits than Nanotechnology with my name (numbers generated Nov 25th 2007).

SINGLE/COMBINATIONAL KEYWORD/SEARCHTERM

Google

Nanotechnology

“Nanotechnology regulation”

“Regulation of Nanotechnology”

Wolbring and Nanotechnology

18,000,000

12500

13,700

13,900


We haven’t even started to answer many pertinent questions. What must be done in order that all people will benefit from nanotechnology? Do we even

want everyone to benefit or do we find it acceptable that some will be left out? How are we to deal with the numerous nano fields, processes, and products? What needs to be regulated: The safety of nanomaterials? The safety of nanotechnology processes and products? How will we provide for the equitable distribution of nanotechnology products and processes? Do we want to provide equitable distribution of nanotechnology products and processes? How shall the governance of nanotechnology be accomplished? How shall we ensure the proper selection of R&D priorities for a balanced and equitable development of nanotechnology? Who is and will be involved in the governance and priority setting discourse? Should we regulate access issues or privacy issues? When we chose regulations should they first be related to the needs of the marginalized or the needs of the already powerful social groups? Should nanotechnologies be developed locally or globally? Should the local ones have a global distribution? Can the regulatory system of today deal with the increasing speed of inventions and the decreasing time of an invention cycle?

These are just a few questions which needs answering.

It is reaonable to expect that the perceptions and social values of the existing hierachy of stakeholders will shape what regulation issues are covered with what kind of angles and even how much visibility any given issue receives. Indeed marginalized people are not involved in the Nano discourse and for that matter are rarely involved in the new and emerging S&T discourses in general, especially if their involvement leads to the highlighting of social risk issues and to a questioning of the usefulness of the existing discourse and priority setting process. Even groups like UNESCO, which from their mandate one would think would be predisposed to involve marginalized populations, are not doing so in their deliberations around new and emerging technologies in a meaningful manner (see the lack of involvement in the development of nanotechnology policies). Within the biotechnology debate, agriculture biotechnology gained much more visibility and controversy than human ‘health’ biotechnology. Medical Health safety issues gained much more visibility than social health safety issues such as equity and justice. The same imbalance regarding medical health safety issues versus social health safety issues appears within both nanotechnology and NBICS. The safety card was played by Bill Joy. (2) His article put nanobots and nanotech on the agenda, and the field of nanotoxicology of nanomaterials has become increasingly visible. Social issues such as distributive justice, enhancement medicine, transhumanism, the concept of health and others remain second tier concerns, if that. At the moment the Biotechnology hierarchy of issues replays itself within Nanotechnology. The results of the keyword combination search method in Google, Google Scholar, Ovid, Academic Search Premier and Cambridge Scientific Databases highlight certain characteristics and certain realities.


  1. The Term “Nanotechnology Regulation” receives less or equal hits than Nanotechnology with my name. That is a clear indication of the lack of discourse around Nanotechnology regulation

  2. If one looks at which social groups are mentioned within ‘Nanotechnology Regulation’ one can clearly see a hierarchy with disabled people and indigenous people on the bottom. This is an indication of the prevailing biases within the nanotechnology regulation discourse

  3. The much higher hits with patients versus disabled people indicates the very medical flavor of the nanotechnology regulation discourse

  4. The numbers also allows for the conclusion that terms such as safety and risks are interpreted in narrow medical ways. So far the regulation discourse seems to be much more concerned with medical health safety than social safety

  5. The keyword combination ‘Nanotechnology and safety’ obtains Twenty Thousand times more hits than the combination ‘ Nanotechnology and distributive justice

  6. Nanotechnology teamed up with human rights has only 20% of the hits of the combination Nanotechnology and weapons and only 1% of hits of the combination Nanotechnology and health


SINGLE/COMBINATIONAL KEYWORD/SEARCHTERM

Google

Google Scholar

Ovid

Academic Search Premier

Cambridge Scientific Databases

Nanotechnology

“Nanotechnology regulation”

“Regulation of Nanotechnology”

Nanotechnology+ Regulation

Regulation of Nanotechnology

18,000,000/

12500/13,700

3,370,000

1,170,000

85,700/

10/45/

5,110

3,990

15258/

0/1

296/

201

16040

10/11

718/718

14790

0/0

177/4

Nanotechnology + Wolbring

13900

23

0

7

1

“Nanotechnology regulation” + women

252





+ “the south”

52





+ "indigenous people"

3





+ disabled people/

2





+ people with disabilities

8





+ the poor

88





+ patient

122





+ Safety

950





+ Risk

1340





SINGLE/COMBINATIONAL KEYWORD/SEARCHTERM

Google

Google Scholar

Ovid

Academic Search Premier

Cambridge Scientific Databases

Nanotechnology + Law

14,000,000

9,350

176

1807

184

Nanotechnology +Law + safety

2,340,000

2,090

24

26

18

Nanotechnology +Law + patient/health

430,000/

7,850,000

996/ 3,310

40/60

18

6/41

Nanotechnology +Law + disabled people

32,500

84

2

0

1

Nanotechnology +Law + women

3,790,000

1,430

14

13

16

Nanotechnology +Law +indigenous people

24,500

88

0

0

0

Nanotechnology Law/regulation water

3,220,000/

1,390,000

4060/2720

31/41

58/38

23/11

Nanotechnology Law/regulation food

4,570,000/

1,540,000

2170/2150

27/42

40/20

17/28

Nanotechnology Law/regulation energy

6,640,000/

4,000,000

6730/3790

51/48

98/36

52/31

Nanotechnology Law Justice

1,460,000





Nanotechnology Law “Distributive Justice”

586/4





Nanotechnology Law Justice Women/disabled people

946,000/16,700





SINGLE/COMBINATIONAL KEYWORD/SEARCHTERM

Google

Google Scholar

Ovid

Academic Search Premier

Cambridge Scientific Databases

Regulation of Nanotechnology

767

45

1

11

0

+ women

98





+ “the south”

40





+"indigenous people"

2





+ disabled people/

10





+ people with disabilities

3





+ the poor

88





+ patient

80





+ Safety

462





+ Risk

400





SINGLE/COMBINATIONAL KEYWORD/SEARCHTERM

Google

Google Scholar

Ovid

Academic Search Premier

Cambridge Scientific Databases

Nanotechnology Safety

13,600,000

4,870

395

26

203

Nanotechnology justice

2,720,000

1,350

14

6

29

Nanotechnology distributive justice

664

50

0

0

0

Nanotechnology human rights

415,000

608

9

3

12

Nanotechnology environment

35,200,000

14,400

786

67

669

Nanotechnology health

46,400,000

8,010

835

105

620

Nanotechnology Medicine

31,800,000

7,440

792

51

7266

Nanotechnology Weapons

2,340,000

1,880

36

18

47

Nanotechnology surveillance

853,000

1,320

0

0

34

Nanotechnology security

23,900,000

4,530

79

61

91

Nanotechnology Food

17,700,000

4,950

300

1151

158

Nanotechnology Water

11,600,000

15,800

1692

2604

1135

Nanotechnology Energy

48800,000

25,800

1392

4982

1702


The Term “Nanotechnology Regulation” receives less or equal hits than Nanotechnology with my name. That is a clear indication of the lack of discourse around Nanotechnology regulation.

Table 1: Word combination/hits for Google, Google Scholar, Ovid, Academic Search

(The above numbers were generated in January 2007. A description of the academic databases Ovid, Academic Search Premier and Cambridge Scientific Databases you find here in one of my publications Wolbring (2006) Peer Reviewed "The triangle of Enhancement Medicine, Disabled people and the concept of Health: A new challenge for HTA, health research and health policy" a 220 page report. Published by the Health Technology Assessment Unit of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for medical research)


The Choice is Yours:

So far a meaningful discourse, especially from the point of view of the marginalized majority of the world around nano regulation does not really exists. The discourse existing today is biased towards the interests and worldviews of a minority of people. We have a long way to go to make the regulation discourse relevant to the needs of the global majority. In order to correct the deficits of the current regulation discourse it will be necessary to involve marginalized populations and to take into account social safety and risk issues, not just medical health/environmental safety issues.


References

1) Nanotech NOW. Nanomedicine Glossary. 2005. http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanotechnology-medicine-glossary.htm.

2) Joy, B., Why the Future Does Not Need Us, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html 2000.,Wired Magazine

Some of my papers related to the topic:

Wolbring (2007) Peer Reviewed " Nano-engagement: For Whom? By Whom? With Whom? For What? What Risk? Medical Health? Environmental? Social? Accepted Journal of Health and Development (India)

Wolbring (2007) Social and ethical issues of nanotechnologies ISO FOCUS the Journal of the International Organization for Standartization ISO Focus, Volume 4, No. 4, April 2007, p.40-42. A full version of the article is online here as ISO Focus itself is not online, ISSN 1729-8709

Wolbring (2007) Editorial for HealthWrights NBICS With, For, and By the People: What it is, what it means and why it matters It is stored here as we had compatibility problems with healthwright software for the start of the article see Healthwright webpage

Wolbring (2006) Scoping paper on Nanotechnology and disabled people for the Center for Nanotechnology in Society Arizona State University