Nanotechnology
Fri, Aug 4th, 2006
Over the past 2 weeks, I’ve been working on a paper about the social consequences of nanotechnology. Though my focus is on how nanotechnology will impact food and agriculture at global and local levels, thinking about nanotechnology is like taking a step into a sci-fi future, except that this particular sci-fi future actually has some potential to come true.
Currently, of course, there’s not too much going on to blow your mind. Most nanotechnology today is applied in cosmetics, where finer and finer formulations of regular old ingredients are coming to the fore. One big area is in sunscreens. For example, zinc oxide is normally white, but when the particles are nano-sized, zinc oxide becomes clear. This is hardly the stuff that makes for apocalyptic visions of technology gone amok. In fact, the biggest concern with nano in this is that we’re not really sure of how it’ll interact with the human body. Because the particles are so damn tiny, they may pass into the body more easily, and accumulate in organs like the liver.
Where things get interesting (to me, at least) is in the development of interactions between nanotechnology, genetics, and microbiology. One possiblity which seems to be coming down the road fairly soon is the ability to trigger certain genetic traits at certain times with nanotechnology, and if you put together genetic engineering with nanotechnology, you can begin to see human control evolving into new and potentially problematic directions.
This is to say nothing of the potential military applications of nanotech. One area that’s pretty far along is the ability to nanoencapsulate certain compounds in tiny carbon balls. Once encapsulated, the release of compounds can be controlled based on things like temperature, sound, or other triggers. This has incredible potential for industrial agriculture — pesticides or herbicides or fertilizers could be released at certain times — but it also has incredible potential for warfare. A chemical agent could be nanoencapsulated and then released with unparalleled control.
From everything I’m reading, these kinds of applications are either available today, or coming very soon…and given the rapid advancement of research and development in nanotech, we’re likely to see even some of the more ‘out there’ possibilites come to fruition, including (but not limited to) self-replicating nanomachines. Not surprisingly, the proponents of this technology paint it as the advancement that will (variously) solve world hunger, end human labor as we know it, presage economic change on the level of the industrial revolution, cure cancer and other diseases, and (fill in your own technological hope here). We also heard many of these same promises for genetic engineering, yet careful analysis proves much of this to be nothing more than a way to route around effective public understanding of the risks of new technologies (pdf).
Technologies aren’t neutral. They almost never can be. They’re produced in a system that has with it particular assumptions about the world, and with nanotechnology, we’re going to see yet another way for humanity to reach deeper and deeper into realms that we know sparingly little about. What’s more, most of this reaching is going to be done for profit, and as we well know, profit is not always in line with what’s best for humans, animals, or the environment. In addition, if these technologies are as powerful as promised (and many early indications seem to be that they will be), they will likely have deep social, cultural, and economic consequences that we as a society need to consider. In the realm of agriculture, for example, advances in nanotechnology could spell an even greater division in the equality between the first and third worlds. And before anyone argues that nanotech has the possibility to generate more food for the world, I’ll remind you that hunger is a problem of social and political will, not really a problem of supply.
I’m not arguing for Luddism. Instead, I’m arguing healthy skepticism over these technologies which will — I guarantee — be on the public agenda in a big way in the coming years.
# Comment by Summer Gray on Tue, Feb 19th, 2008 at 2:52 pm:
I have also been working on understanding the social consequences of nanotechnology, and I am thrilled to see that you are grappling with this issue. Your critical perspective is much needed in nanotechnology discourse!
As a graduate student of sociology, I am interested in developing a deeper understanding of how the social world is organized and how this organization changes over time. Beyond my involvement with the UCSB Center for Nanotechnology in Society (UCSB-CNS), my exposure to literature in the areas of science, technology and society (STS), the history and philosophy of science, feminist technology studies (FTS), globalization, and global political economy (GPE) has revealed to me the centrality of technology in theories of social, cultural and economic change. However, the often simplistic and uncritical use of technology to explain societal change is problematic and rarely challenged. In an effort to understand the changing or ‘globalizing’ world, a more critical, multifaceted and contextual understanding of technology and its relationship to society is desperately needed. Additionally, there is a need for a more critical consciousness of inequality —from the exploitation of women to the overwhelming economic disparities that separate and suppress people of the developing world—and how such inequality is connected to technology and society.
This involves an investigation into why the social world is organized as it is. In order to do this, I believe that it is absolutely necessary to carefully consider recent technological innovations, including nanotechnology, and the historical, material, economic and cultural relationships such technologies have to the social world.
Nanotechnology is in the earliest stages of its development—a nascent technology with an unclear past and an even cloudier future. Like many other emerging technologies throughout history, the transformative potential of nanotechnology has incited both fear and hope into the hearts and minds of those who care (or dare) to imagine the future. Yet, in a world supposedly at the cusp of profound transformation, only a very small minority loses sleep over nanotechnology. While in recent years there has been growing concern among scientists, engineers, policy-makers, and corporations to come to grips with the potential societal outcomes of nanotechnology as an emergent technology of theoretically unlimited possibilities, the absence of critical scholars in such discourse is unsettling.
Whether in support or rejection of nanotechnology, enthusiasts and advocates of nanotechnology often fail to incorporate a deeper understanding of the relationship between technology and society, often falling into technological determinist frames of thought while relying upon weak historical analogies. The majority of both nano advocates and opponents view technology as an autonomous and inevitable force underlying the transformation of multiple aspects of social life. Such visions often rely upon the idea of sweeping technological convergence—old, new and nonexistent—as a driving force in societal change. Many of the most passionate pleas for further exploration or immediate moratorium (from Eric Drexler to Bill Joy) are not entirely nano-specific. That is, they speak to deeper rooted perceptions about humanity and the social organization of the world. These visions of hope and fear, although situated within nanotechnology discourse, involve ideologies that go beyond the realm of science and the laboratory. These extreme positions regarding the potential societal impacts of nanotechnology often blur the lines between “real” and “theoretical” and wind up confusing fact and fiction. Those individuals and organizations that care most about nanotechnology end up shaping its course.
It is crucial that people begin to question whether or not technology is neutral. Given the central importance that technology plays in so many theories of globalization, it is imperative to develop a more critical understanding of the relationship between technology and society in order inform more socially just policy decisions. If nanotechnology is to be driven by profit, it is important to expose this truth early in its development. A more complex understanding of the political and economic factors that shape nanotechnology is essential. I believe that there is much to learn about global inequality from a better understanding of the relationship between technology and society, and nanotechnology offers a rich case study.
There is an upcoming conference that you might be interested in:
Questions of Justice in Nanotechnological Development(s)
3rd Workshop of the Nano Ethics Network
Oct 31 - Nov 1, 2008 in Aarhus, Denmark
The deadline for abstract submission is March 1st. If you would like more information, please let me know.
I look forward to reading your upcoming book and as I said before, I am thrilled to see your voice in nanotechnology discourse.
Best,
Summer Gray
summer.m.gray@gmail.com