“Nanotechnology” is a word that has come a long way. Until recently most people associated nanotechnology with science fiction-based accounts that tended to focus on fantastical devices and applications. Due to developments in nanoscience (e.g., greater control over atomic structure and relatively better predictability of nanoscale properties), nanotechnology has entered the commercial realm, and it has begun simultaneously to stimulate the development of new governance frameworks. In this article, the author discusses potential benefits and risks and examines a select set of frameworks for governing this technology.

In recent years regulators have become sensitized to the fact that advances in nanotechnology challenge current regulatory approaches and capacities. Since many of these issues parallel earlier debates on genetically modified foods, it seems highly likely that similar decision-making tools and approaches will be used for governing nano-based food. A key decision-making tool used by regulators in North America and Europe involves application of the principle of substantial equivalence. In this paper, the authors argue that substantial equivalence is an inapt arbiter of equivalence for nano-based food, and that it incorporates a fundamental flaw in logic known as a category-mistake.

Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia. Edited by Sal Restivo. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. 728 p., index. isbn 0-19-514193-8 $150). Un article de la revue Scientia Canadensis (Natural Science in the New World: The Descriptive Enterprise) diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

This article argues that advances in nanotechnology in general, and lab-on-chip technology in particular, have the potential to benefit the developing world in its quest to control risks to human health and the environment. Based on the “risk society” thesis of Ulrich Beck, it is argued that the developed world must realign its science and technology policy priorities to meet some of the most pressing needs of humanity.

Introduction: The Challenge of Nanotechnologies * Part I Introducing Nanotechnology * Nanotechnology: From 'Wow' to 'Yuck'? * Nanotechnology: From Feynman to Funding * Microsystems and Nanoscience for Biomedical * Applications: A View to the Future * Nanotechnoscience and Complex Systems: The Case for Nanology * Part II Regional Developments * Nanotechnologies and Society in Japan * Nanotechnologies and Society in the USA * Nanotechnologies and Society in Europe * Nanotechnologies and Society in Canada * Part III Benefits and Risks * From Biotechnology to Nanotechnology: What Can We Learn from Earlier Technologies? * Getting Nanotechnology Right the First Time * Risk Management and Regulation in an Emerging Technology * Nanotechnology and Nanoparticle Toxicity: A Case for Precaution * The Future of Nanotechnology in Food Science and Nutrition: Can Science Predict its Safety? Part IV Ethics and Public Understanding * The Global Ethics of Nanotechnology * Going Public: Risk, Trust and Public Understanding of Nanotechnologies * Dwarfing the Social? Nanotechnology Lessons from the Biotechnology Front * Part V Law and Regulation * Nanotechnologies and the Law of Patents: A Collision Course * Nanotechnologies and Civil Liability * Nanotechnologies and the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects * Nanotechnologies and Corporate Criminal Liability * Part VI Conclusion * What Makes Nanotechnologies Special? *

Pioneered simultaneously in Denmark and the United States in the early 1990s, consensus conferencing is a relatively new tool for consulting the public on a wide range of issues. A consensus conference involves members of the lay public and gives them the central role in assessing a problem area. Participants rarely have subject expertise that is directly relevant to the topic being explored and contribute by making their views known in the form of concerns, values, and everyday experiences. The underlying purpose of a consensus conference is to provide a means by which ordinary (lay) members of society can be involved in a purposeful way in making their views known to regulators, industrial actors, scientists, and politicians. Consensus conferencing often involves an examination of science and issues and is seen as a way to reinvigorate democratic decision making by including the public upstream in the development of science and technology, rather than after-the-fact. Additionally, it is a tool for building trust and for creating a more open and transparent dialogue. In Canada, consensus conferencing has been used previously to explore topics like genetically modified foods, plant molecular farming, and blood safety. Other countries have used consensus conferencing on topics like nanotechnology (USA), telecommunications and teleworking (USA and Denmark), national electricity policy (Switzerland), and radioactive waste management (UK). Consensus conferencing is about building consensus. Since consensus refers to agreement, the results of a consensus conference are a record of group decisions, and represent positions and recommendations that participants can live with. It is therefore fundamental to the success of a consensus conference that the process for getting to a certain degree of general agreement occurs in an environment which promotes inclusivity, participation, cooperation, egalitarianism, and a willingness to be solution oriented. The purpose of a consensus conference is to produce an informed debate on a limited subject and to produce statements and recommendations that reflect the nature of the deliberations. As such, this document reflects the views of 22 adult Canadians from coast-to-coast, and across all age ranges. Participants were selected in one of three ways: (1) responses from a series of advertisements in the Globe and Mail newspaper, (2) random digit telephone recruitment using quota sampling, and (3) snowball sampling to fill in demographic gaps. In general, participants were non-specialists who were motivated to understand the importance of the issues, and were not meant to reflect a perfectly random assortment of Canadians. The topic of this consensus conference was the development of rapid, portable, low-cost diagnostic devices. Such devices are being developed in many parts of the world, and utilize micro-fluidics, electrical fields, micro-scale pumps, and fluorescence technologies to analyze biological samples including blood, urine, water, etc. Such devices have been called various names including micro-fluidic platform technology and lab-on-chip technology. These devices, and the glass and silicon chips that are used with them, will provide point of care and point of concern testing that may usher in a new age of testing and monitoring. This brings the functionality of a large-scale laboratory down to the size of a hand-held unit which can perform diagnostic testing, meter, measure and mix samples, move mixtures to temperature-controlled chambers, and separate and analyze results. By taking advantage of favourable scaling properties and a small footprint, this promises to improve the availability of diagnostic and genetic testing, environmental monitoring, and several other clinical and non-clinical applications. Clearly, such has many risks and benefits associated with its use, and also raise a range of socio-economic and ethical issues. …

Public perception of the negative effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals appears to be higher compared to other chemical pollutants, due to (1) chronic, low-probability effects, and (2) uncertainties about which biological effects may be relevant for human health. Individuals, both expert and lay public, require credible, trustworthy, and understandable information about the scientific evidence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in order to make informed risk decisions. The creation of a dedicated web site, http://www.emcom.ca, as a tool for knowledge translation and transfer provides the general public with access to scientific experts and bridges the gap between experts and nonexperts through a two-way, interactive communications approach. By obtaining accurate and credible information, individuals can make better-informed decisions concerning endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

At present there is an enormous discrepancy between our nanotechnological capabilities, particularly our nanobiotechnologies, our social wisdom and consensus on how to apply them. To date, cost considerations have greatly constrained our application of nanotechnologies. However, novel advances in microsystem platform technologies are about to greatly diminish that economic constraint while developing new industries. Properly used in a solid legal and ethical framework, within an educated population, these advances will vastly enrich our quality of life without being intrusive. Improperly used, these technologies could lead to a modern-day Luddism, social turmoil or possibly even to emulating those societies described in the darkest of novels. These technologies must be developed in tandem with the social and legal frameworks needed to ensure that they improve both individuals and our society. To ensure that this occurs we need to have the ethical, legal, scientific and engineering experts working together, and with the public.

(2006). Health Care and Notions of Risk. Health Sociology Review: Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 113-114.

Using Canada as a case study, this chapter argues that regulating biotechnology and nanotechnology is made unnecessarily complex and inherently unstable due to a failure to consult the public early and often enough. Furthermore, it is argued that future regulators (and promoters) of nanotechnology may learn valuable lessons from the mistakes made in regulating biotechnology.

The triple helix of state, university and industry is missing an essential fourth helix - the public. Advances in biotechnology and nanotechnology are jeopardized by the virtual absence of this helix. Using Canada as a case study, this chapter argues that regulating biotechnology and nanotechnology is made unnecessarily complex and inherently unstable due to a failure to consult the public early and often enough. Furthermore, it is argued that future regulators (and promoters) of nanotechnology may learn valuable lessons from the mistakes made in regulating biotechnology, and may appreciate the value of adopting a post-normal approach to science.To understand how triple helix relations generate barriers to innovation by excluding the fourth helix, this chapter considers the difficulties associated with regulating the products of biotechnology and nanotechnology in Canada. Although nanotechnology is in its infancy, and few understand it, a set of lessons can be gleaned from the experience of regulating and promoting biotechnology. In short, this chapter demonstrates how triple helix relations come under greater scrutiny when innovations generate both scientific and social uncertainty, and erode trust. To overcome these obstacles and to minimize the challenges they pose to governance, it is suggested that triple helix institutions accept that post-normal science has arrived and welcome fourth helix participants. After all, how steerable is a self-organizing system without all key players at the helm?.

The triple helix of state, university and industry is missing an essential fourth helix, the public. Advances in biotechnology and nanotechnology are jeopardised by the virtual absence of this helix. Using Canada as a case study, this paper argues that regulating biotechnology and nanotechnology is made unnecessarily complex and inherently unstable due to a failure to consult the public early and often enough. Furthermore, it is argued that future regulators (and promoters) of nanotechnology may learn valuable lessons from the mistakes made in regulating biotechnology, and may appreciate the value of adopting a post-normal approach to science.

This paper raises a special set of problems concerning the emergence of new technology and its impact on the triple helix. It focuses on discoveries in biotechnology and nanotechnology and how such innovations justify calling for creating a fourth helix, namely the extended peer community which is an aspect of but not identical to the civil society. The main concerns of the triple helix, regulation of new technologies and at the same time encouraging innovations may be challenged by the very nature of technology and the potential risks it may pose. In the context of the post-normal science, the uncertainty and potential hazards increase and demonstrates how the traditional triple helix may not be adequate. Using the example of Canada, the paper argues that the failure to integrate the fourth helix can be costly and risky.

Introduction Imagine a world where objects can be built without human intervention. In this future world, very small machines called can position in precise ways nanoscale constructs (individual atoms, molecules, or sub-assemblies of the same) that could theoretically be made from any raw material (e.g., carbon, silicon) (1), and could be based on blueprints that are patentable, and transportable through high speed networks like the Internet. This world may seem like something from the realm of science fiction, and may be an example of what I call nano-hype (2), but it is steadily becoming a reality due to advances in nanoscience. What possible economic impacts can we expect from such a fundamental shift in the functioning of the global economy once assembler technology becomes a reality? The Assembler Stage For many in the investment community, nanotechnology is a lightning rod for both criticism and promise. Having been stung by the rapid growth and collapse of the so-called dot.com sector, and now by problems facing the agricultural biotechnology sector, investors have become wary of claims that sound like nano-hype, or worse still science fiction. A significant obstacle faced by scientists, which reverberates throughout the investment community, is the scaling up of nanoscale processes and products to the macroscale level. Although existing nanoscale products like powders, coatings and crystals are lucrative (and stimulate a race for new patents), the true breakthrough will occur when nanoscientists can encourage directed self-assembly at the nanoscale, and when so-called universal assemblers are developed. Directed self-assembly may involve developing processes where molecules mimic biology (known as biomimetics) by constructing nanostructures based on properties like the folding of proteins, by manipulating nucleic acid sequences and using cellular fuels like ATP to power hybrid organic-inorganic motors, pumps, and actuators. (3) By contrast, the search for a universal assembler involves developing a mechanism for positioning atoms and molecules in pre-defined ways using non-biological processes. Texas-based corporation Zyvex has developed a crude prototype of a nano assembler that picks up and places atoms using a modified atomic force microscope. (4) For Eric Drexler, a universal assembler could be a positioning device with different tools and tips that place, mill, add reactants and allow for the assembly of nanoscale components into larger structures (somewhat like assembling Ikea furniture!). (5) Following the laws of nature, the universal assembler should be able to build almost any object (including other assemblers). If, and when, this breakthrough in universal assembler technology occurs, nanotechnology will usher in a new kind of industrial revolution where existing manufacturing processes will be replaced, the concept of human labour reconsidered and the current basis of the economy and global trade transformed. Could these changes usher in a new form of mercantilism? What is Mercantilism? Mercantilism was a form of economic nationalism that was concerned primarily with questions of competition and the role that governments could play in protecting local merchants, generating employment opportunities in manufacturing, and promoting a more secure state. Tariffs and other protectionist policies were used to create a positive balance of trade (a surplus), facilitated the accumulation of precious metals (especially bullion) and supported the expansion of military power and shipping. Mercantilist policies helped forge new alliances between the state and the growing merchant classes. In Europe, the mercantile system protected and encouraged the growth of merchants like the British East India Company, and was ultimately a driver of colonialism. The origins of mercantilism, as a system of economic and political practice, is shadowy and a subject of debate. …

The revolution in nanotechnology has brought with it a nanotechnological way of seeing the world. (1) By opening the black box of nanotechnology, scientists have changed the way we envision future developments in medicine, manufacturing, computing, and robotics, to name a few examples. However, much of the public, including physicians, are poorly prepared for this revolution, and require a new way of understanding these advances, assessing risks and benefits, and appreciating the potential impacts of nanomedicine on healthcare. In the field of nanomedicine, these issues will become particularly relevant due to the increasing politicisation of the nanotechnology debate, and subsequent calls for new regulations by non-governmental organisations and other concerned actors. (2) In short, the future of nanomedicine depends on the degree to which nanotechnology as a whole garners wide-scale public support. At this point in time, the risks and benefits associated with developments in nanomedicine are largely hypothetical and illustrative of larger questions that accompany new technological developments. Early developments in nuclear medicine and biotechnology provide us with lessons for assessing the likely impact of nanotechnology on medicine. The development of nuclear technology for military purposes during World War II changed dramatically the tone of the 20th Century. (3) Not only did the deployment of nuclear weapons by the United States of America end the war, but it ushered in a new era of international competition in the form of an arms race. Civilian applications of nuclear technology were developed in the 1950s and 1960s with the advent of nuclear reactors for electricity production, and with the development of radioisotopes and refinements in medical imaging technology. Although nuclear reactor developments have stalled in many parts of the world, the medical applications that came from an improved understanding of the atom occupy an important role in the history of medicine, and have generally been well-accepted by patients. This acceptance of nuclear medicine by patients, and physicians alike, has come about primarily due to the demonstrable benefits of this technology, and from a growing general acceptance of other technologies that expose us to different kinds of electromagnetic radiation (e.g., microwave ovens, cellular telephones, wireless internet). In the case of biotechnology, the story is somewhat different. Biotechnology has followed a more turbulent path. There are two main reasons why biotechnology has failed to capture wide-scale public support. (4) First, the benefit-to-risk ratio from innovations in agricultural biotechnology is poorly balanced for consumers. Consumers of genetically modified food have been offered food with traits that confer primarily herbicide-tolerance and insecticidal properties. The benefits of these technologies flow primarily to producers rather than consumers. Consequently, it should be of little surprise that consumers resist food that provides little direct benefit, and some level of risk (even if theoretical). Second, the public, especially in European countries where BSE (mad cow disease) became a public relations problem, continues to show a decline in trust in science and in governmental regulation. Trust is difficult to build and easy to lose. The development of innovations in biotechnology has been hampered by this lack of trust due to public concerns about the adequacy of the regulatory process, its openness and transparency, and potential conflicts of interest arising from government, industry and university partnerships. To avoid some of these pitfalls, developers and advocates of nanomedicine need to consider the following observations. A serious mistake made by many proponents of biotechnology was a failure to consider risk and benefit simultaneously. This mistake is especially prominent amongst industrial actors who hyped the benefits of the biotechnology revolution without paying much heed to potential risks. …

Advances in biotechnology make possible the transition toward a carbohydrate-based economy. By modifying plants to sequester more carbon and survive on marginal lands, more cost-effective means for using biomass are explored. This article discusses how better use of biomass can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and poses questions about how this transition can occur.