From Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Controversy

In this paper we develop an analysis of the public and political controversy which overtook genetically modified (GM) foods and crops in the UK in the 1990s and identify some key lessons for the future regulation and governance of nanotechnologies. Given the starkness of the ‘GM Controversy’, it is not surprising that there is now speculation in many quarters as to whether nanotechnologies might not be expected to experience a similarly rough passage. Here, it is suggested, is a further potentially transformative technology, now arguably at roughly the stage of development as was agricultural biotechnology in the late 1970s or early 1980s, and subject to similar levels of utopian promise, expectation and dystopian fear (Nordmann, 2004b). Some NGOs are already suggesting that the issues and problems that nanotechnology raises are of such far-reaching political and social importance that ‘governments [should] declare an immediate moratorium on commercial production of new nanomaterials and launch a transparent global process for evaluating the socioeconomic, health and environmental implications of the technology’ (ETC, 2003, p. 72). Crudely put, the agricultural GM experience represents a warning, a cautionary tale of how not to assess an emerging technology and allay public concern. For many, addressing the question ‘Is nanotechnology the next GM?’ is critical to the commercial success and public acceptability of emerging applications in the field. As such the ‘GM experience’ has been portrayed as a model ‘to be avoided’ in the future development and governance of nanotechnology. The comparison between GM and nanotechnology—and the lessons that may be drawn from the regulation of biotechnology—has been made in a number of different contexts (see, for example, Einsiedel and Goldenberg, 2004; Mayer, 2002; Brumfiel, 2003; Wolfson, 2003; Mehta, 2004). As discussed below our analysis here is Science as Culture Vol. 15, No. 4, 291–307, December 2006

[1]  R. Grove-White Environmental Knowledge and Public Policy Needs: On Humanising the Research Agenda , 1998 .

[2]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science , 2003 .

[3]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  Converging Technologies - Shaping the Future of European Societies , 2004 .

[4]  J. Durant,et al.  The public understanding of science , 1989, Nature.

[5]  B. Wynne,et al.  Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs , 2001, Science as culture.

[6]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Between risk and precaution – reassessing the future of GM crops , 2000 .

[7]  Robin Grove-White,et al.  Environment, Risk and Democracy , 1997 .

[8]  Hilary Rose,et al.  Science and Society , 1969 .

[9]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? , 2005 .

[10]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Finding a Precautionary Approach to Technological Developments – Lessons for the Evaluation of GM Crops , 2002 .

[11]  Linda Frances Vennard Goldenberg,et al.  Dwarfing the Social? Nanotechnology Lessons from the Biotechnology Front , 2004 .

[12]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Chaos and Control: Nanotechnology and the Politics of Emergence , 2006, Deleuze and Science.

[13]  G. Gaskell,et al.  GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  K. Eric Drexler,et al.  Engines of Creation: the Coming Era of Nanotechnology , 1986 .

[15]  Ian Scoones,et al.  Science and citizens : globalization and the challenge of engagement , 2006 .

[16]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[17]  C. H. Waddington The man-made future , 1978 .

[18]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Wising up : the public and new technologies , 2000 .

[19]  J. Durant,et al.  Attitudes of selected public groups in the UK to biotechnology. , 1992 .

[20]  E. Carlson :Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States , 2008 .

[21]  James Wilsdon,et al.  Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies , 2006 .

[22]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance , 2003 .

[23]  Alfons Bora,et al.  Biotechnology in the public sphere. , 2000 .

[24]  G. Marcus Technoscientific imaginaries : conversations, profiles, and memoirs , 1995 .

[25]  H. Vos Trade and Industry , 1946 .

[26]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Uncertainty, precaution and decision making : the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. , 1996 .

[27]  David Wield,et al.  Regulating biotechnological risk, straining Britain's consultative style , 1999 .

[28]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Climate Change for Biotechnology? UK Public Opinion 1991-2002 , 2003 .

[29]  Simon Joss,et al.  Public participation in science : the role of consensus conferences in Europe , 1995 .

[30]  J. Ravetz The post-normal science of safety , 2005 .

[31]  Paul Martin,et al.  The Drugs Don't Work , 2003, Social studies of science.

[32]  L. Levidow Precautionary Uncertainty , 2001 .

[33]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Risk As Globalising "Democratic" Discourse? Framing Subjects And Citizens , 2006 .

[34]  Les Levidow,et al.  Proactive and reactive approaches to risk regulation , 1992 .

[35]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  ‘Let them eat cake’: GM foods and the democratic imagination , 2005 .

[36]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences , 2001 .

[37]  Mike Michael,et al.  Prepublication Copy of , 2009 .

[38]  Michael D. Mehta,et al.  From Biotechnology to Nanotechnology: What Can We Learn from Earlier Technologies? , 2004 .

[39]  P. Macnaghten,et al.  Animals in their Nature , 2004 .

[40]  Les Levidow,et al.  UK: precautionary commercialization? , 2000 .

[41]  B. Wynne Knowledges in Context , 1991 .

[42]  D. Burke GM food and crops: what went wrong in the UK? , 2004, EMBO reports.

[43]  Alfred Nordmann Molecular disjunctions : staking claims at the nanoscale , 2004 .

[44]  L. Levidow Democratizing technology—or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe , 1998 .

[45]  Jack Stilgoe,et al.  The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure That Science Really Matters , 2005 .

[46]  J. R. Wolfson Social and Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology: Lessons from Biotechnology and Other High Technologies , 2003 .

[47]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[48]  Geoff Brumfiel,et al.  Nanotechnology: A little knowledge... , 2003, Nature.

[49]  W. Bainbridge,et al.  Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2001 .