Nanotech needs to listen to its public, and now
For the past three months, the Nanoscience Centre at the University of Cambridge has been the site of an unusual experiment. Situated on the outskirts of the British city, the laboratory houses 120 scientists developing applications at the frontiers of nanotechnology. In June, it broke with convention by appointing Rob Doubleday as its first lab-based sociologist. His task is to help his colleagues reflect on the social and ethical implications of their research into technology that takes place on a scale of billionths of a metre.
The motives behind his appointment can be summed up in two letters: GM. After almost a decade of battles over genetically modified crops and foods, scientists and policymakers are desperate to avoid nanotechnology becoming the stage for the next big showdown between science and society.
They are right to be worried. Over the past year, the murmurs of opposition to nanotechnology have grown louder. Far-fetched stories about “grey goo” smothering the world - as nanoscale machines replicate themselves ad infinitum - have given way to a more informed debate about the potential toxicity of nanoparticles, which are already found in products such as sunscreen. Pressure groups such as Greenpeace are monitoring developments.
Mr Doubleday's appointment is one sign that the scientific community is trying to learn from GM and approach things differently this time. It is not an isolated initiative. Across UK science, a quiet revolution is under way as dialogue with the public moves “upstream” to an earlier stage in the research and development process.
Four years ago, an influential report from the House of Lords detected a “new mood for dialogue” between science and society. Consultation papers, focus groups and citizens' juries suddenly became fashionable in scientific circles. The public were embraced, if not always with enthusiasm, at least out of a recognition that GM and other controversies had made public engagement a necessity.
But in spite of this new openness, the links back from public engagement to the choices, priorities and everyday practices of science remained unclear. Public dialogue tended to be restricted to particular questions posed at particular stages in the cycle of research, development and exploitation. Deeper questions about the values, visions and vested interests that drive science remained unasked and unanswered. GM is a case in point. By the time the government's “GM Nation?” consultation exercise took place last year, it was too late to alter the technology's direction. Political, economic and organisational commitments were already in place, narrowing the space for meaningful public discussion.
Enter the new focus on upstream engagement. In its recent report on nanotechnology, the Royal Society, the UK's independent scientific academy, called for “a proactive public debate” to take place now, at a stage when it can inform scientific research, before deeply entrenched or polarised positions emerge. Similarly, the government's new 10-year strategy for science includes a doubling of the budget for public engagement and a pledge to ensure that debate “takes place upstream, as new areas emerge”.
What would a truly “upstream” debate about nanotechnology look like? First, all the assumptions surrounding the technology need to be opened up for discussion - not only technical issues about risk but also more fundamental questions: what is the technology for? Who controls it? Who will take responsibility if things go wrong?
Second, companies and universities involved in nanotechnology need to reach out to the public. Companies could broaden their market research to ask more fundamental questions of their consumers. University laboratories could foster links with social scientists and pressure groups.
For such debate to be meaningful, innovators must be willing to allow the findings of public dialogue to shape their work. At the same time, pressure groups and the media need to create a more constructive climate for discussion by supporting companies that attempt to do things differently. This poses a challenge to existing models of innovation. Critics may argue that it will slow progress. But the biggest lesson from GM is the need to take public concerns more seriously. If companies are to avoid the same mistakes with nanotechnology, they need to anticipate potential clashes before products reach the marketplace. This will prevent the boom-and-bust cycle of innovation that characterised GM, where, at the final hurdle, billions in research investment were wasted when consumers simply said “no”.
纳米科技? 先听听公众怎么说
在过去三个月中，一个非同寻常的实验一直在剑桥大学纳米科学中心进行着。该实验室座落在英国剑桥市的城郊，120位科学家在此开发纳米科技的前沿应用技术。今年6月，实验室打破惯例，任命罗布?道布尔戴(Rob Doubleday)为首位实验室社会学家。道布尔戴的任务，是帮助同事思考纳米科技研究带来的社会与伦理影响。纳米科技发生在一个只有十亿分之一米大小的世界中。
任命道布尔戴背后的动机可以总结为两个字母：GM(转基因)。围绕转基因作物和食物的争论持续了将近10年，科学家和政策制定者们正竭尽所能，以求避免纳米科技成为下一个科学和社会间大决战的舞台。
他们的担心是对的。过去一年中，反对纳米科技的怨言越来越响。以前有个牵强的说法称，随着纳米级机器无限的自我复制，“灰色粘质”(grey goo)将让整个世界窒息，而今这一说法已让位给有关纳米微粒潜在毒性的讨论。这一讨论更为可信，人们已经在遮光剂等产品中发现了这种微粒。绿色和平组织(Greenpeace)等压力团体正在关注着这方面的发展。
道布尔戴先生的任命是一个迹象，表明这一次科学界正试图从“转基因”中吸取教训，希望以不同途径处理事物。这不是一个孤立的首创行动。随着公众之间的对话正“溯流而上”，在科学研究和开发进程的早期阶段展开，在整个英国科学界，一场静悄悄的革命正在进行。
四年前，英国上议院一份有影响的报告发现，在科学和社会之间出现了“一种新的对话气氛”。突然之间，咨询报告、焦点团体、市民评判委员会等在科学界变得走俏起来。科学家向公众敞开了怀抱，即使不是总带着热情的，至少也是出于这样一种认知：转基因和其它争议已使公众参与成为必要。
尽管有了这一新的开放姿态，但从公众参与，到科学界的各种选择、优先事项和日常做法，其间的联系目前仍不清楚。公开对话往往局限在研究、开发和探索周期中特定阶段出现的特定问题上。有关价值、远景和既得利益等推动科学进步的更深层次问题仍未得到提出和回答。“转基因”就是一个很好的例子。到去年英国政府发起“转基因国家？(GM Nation?)”咨询活动时，要想改变这种科技的方向已为时太晚。政治、经济和组织的承诺已经到位，从而缩小了留给有意义的公开讨论的空间。
这时就要开始重新关注上游讨论的参与了。英国的独立科学院皇家学会(Royal Society)在其最新的纳米科技报告中呼吁，现在就进行“积极主动的公开讨论”。这种讨论要在它能够通报科学研究的阶段进行，在各种立场变得根深蒂固或两极分化前进行。同样，政府的新10年科学战略应包括一笔双倍的公众参与预算，并承诺确保“在新研究领域出现时”讨论“能在上游进行”。
围绕纳米科技的真正“上游”讨论将是怎样的呢？首先，有关该科技的所有假设都应该可以讨论，不仅仅是有关风险的技术性问题，还要包括更基础性的问题：这种科技有什么用？谁对此进行控制？如果出错谁来负责？
第二，从事纳米技术研究的公司和大学需要深入到公众中去。这些公司可以扩大它们的市场研究，询问顾客更基础性的问题。大学实验室可以培养与社会科学家和压力团体之间的联系。
为了使这种讨论有意义，革新者必须愿意让公开对话的结果来决定他们的工作。同时，压力团体和媒体要通过支持那些试图以不同方式行事的公司，为讨论营造一个更有建设性的氛围。这对现有的创新模式提出了挑战。批评家或许会认为，那将使进步的脚步变慢。
但来自“转基因”的最大教训是，需要更为严肃地对待公众的担忧。如果公司想避免在纳米技术上犯相同的错误，那么它们需要在产品上市之前就预见到潜在的冲突。这将防止创新的盛衰循环，而这正是“转基因”的特点。在这最后一道坎上，只要消费者简单地说一声“不”，数十亿的研究投资就打了水漂。
