Abstract Nanotechnology, the development of materials and capabilities at the nanometre scale, is thought to hold enormous potential for current and future human lifestyles and activities. CSIRO, an active participant and promoter of nanotechnology research, is also engaged in researching the social aspects and implications of this emerging technology. In addressing the challenge of integrating social and nanotechnology research, CSIRO recognises the importance of identifying and exploring the societal changes that this technology could bring about. This report outlines and describes the community forum (called the Citizens’ Panel) conducted by CSIRO as a component of the SEI Nanotechnology Scoping Project. The aim of the Nanotechnology Scoping Project was to explore perspectives on the implications of nanotechnology research and development in five areas - commercialisation, ethics, regulation, environmental and social impacts. In addition to the community forum (Citizens’ Panel), data for this project was also gathered from interviews, and a literature review. The findings of this community forum were summarised and expressed as statements by three stakeholder categories – industry, government and community. The following list represents a snapshot of these perspectives: Democratic accountability and transparency is important in science and technology research and development. Australians have shown themselves to be interested in understanding the impacts of nanotechnology and other emerging technologies, and CSIRO and similar organisations have nothing to fear from a genuine proactive science-community dialogue. The potential for growth of industrial applications of nanotechnology R&D is exciting, and its development should be used to decouple resource consumption from economic growth through initiatives in the recovery, recycling and reuse of material products as well as ensuring the cleanness of natural resources used like water, soil and air. The development of a nanotechnology industry should allow local industry and smaller players to survive and develop. In general, the participants in the Citizens’ Panel were concerned about: Monitoring the health and safety of both humans and the natural environment, and those working with nanoparticles Nanotechnologies developed for the purposes of war Ownership and control of emerging technologies The adequacy of current international regulation for nanomaterials The social divides that nanotechnology might generate or exacerbate internationally as well as intra-nationally The ramifications of intellectual property laws both for Australia and for developing countries in light of what are likely nanotechnology impacts and paths of development.
[1]
Nanotechnology in Australia – Towards a National Initiative
,
2002
.
[2]
J. Picou,et al.
Contemporary Conceptions of Environmental Risk: Implications for Resource Management and Policy
,
2002
.
[3]
Brian Wynne,et al.
Wising up : the public and new technologies
,
2000
.
[4]
L. Winner.
The Whale and the Reactor
,
2020
.
[5]
Jens Rasmussen,et al.
Human error mechanisms in complex work environments
,
1987
.
[6]
Joy Bill,et al.
Why the future doesn’t need us
,
2003
.
[7]
Michael D. Cobb,et al.
Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust
,
2004,
Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.
[8]
M. Roco.
Broader Societal Issues of Nanotechnology
,
2003
.
[9]
Michael E. Gorman,et al.
Societal dimensions of nanotechnology
,
2004,
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.
[10]
W. Hunt.
Nanomaterials: Nomenclature, novelty, and necessity
,
2004
.
[11]
Brian Wynne,et al.
May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide.
,
2004
.
[12]
A. Marcus,et al.
On the Edge: Heeding the Warnings of Unusual Events
,
1999
.