Reading the just-released European Commission’s recommendations on a
code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (
pdf download, 92 KB. Also see the recent
SafeNano news item on the code), I cannot help wonder if the race towards successful and sustainable nanotechnologies is becoming something of a hare and tortoise affair (or hare and turtle, if you are West of the Atlantic divide).
On the one hand you have the hare—a sleek, fast, well-funded research machine; single-mindedly driven by the idea of wealth creation through innovation, and supremely confident in its own abilities.
Then you have the tortoise—a slower, steadier, more thoughtful beast; working out where it needs to get to, and making its way there with considered determination.
I’m sure that comparing nanotechnology in the US and Europe to the mythical race between the hare and tortoise is deeply flawed on many levels. But bear with me on this one…
The European Commission recommendations on a code of conduct reveal an underlying philosophy to developing sustainable nanotechnologies. From the scope and aim:
“The Code of Conduct invites all stakeholders to act responsibly and cooperate with each other … in order to ensure that [nanosciences and nanotechnologies] research is undertaken in the Community in a safe, ethical and effective framework, supporting sustainable economic, social and environmental development.”
The US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) recently published a similar document—not addressing principles for developing sustainable nanotechnologies directly, but
outlining principles for nanotechnology oversight (
pdf download, 80 KB. See note below. See also the recent
SafeNano blog on the principles). Yet the desire to develop principles underlying sustainable [i.e. long-term successful] nanotechnologies is clearly apparent. From the OSTP memorandum:
“Realizing the benefits of nanotechnology will require not only research and development, but also appropriate oversight.”
Each document outlines a number of principles that will, at some level, underpin successful nanotechnologies. The specified aims of the two documents are not identical, and the order in which the principles appear is in no way unified. Yet despite these differences, comparing the two is somewhat revealing.
I’m summarizing and paraphrasing here, but in essence the principles (six for the US, seven for the EU) are as follows:
Principle 1:
US: Be mindful of the health, economic and environmental benefits of nanotechnology, when considering health and safety oversight.
EU: Nanotechnology R&D should respect fundamental rights and be conducted in the interest of the well-being of individuals and society.
Principle 2:
US: Existing regulations are adequate to overseeing nanotechnology and its applications
EU: Nanotechnology research activities should be safe, ethical and contribute to sustainable development.
Principle 3:
US: Adequate information should be developed with respect to the effects of nanomaterials on human health and the environment.
EU: Nanotechnology research activities should be conducted in accordance with the precautionary principle.
Principle 4:
US: The Federal government should use standard oversight approaches to assess risks and benefits, and manage risks.
EU: All stakeholders should be able to participate in the governance of nanotechnology research activities.
Principle 5:
US: The Federal government should proactively promote international cooperation.
EU: Nanotechnology research activities should meet the best scientific standards.
Principle 6:
US: Regulations should: focus where need exists and where scientific information supports action; should be based on the best available scientific, technical, economic and other information; should (where possible) enable rather than hinder innovation; should be flexible; should lead to benefits that justify the costs; and should be developed in an open and transparent manner.
EU: Governance of nanotechnology research activities should encourage maximum creativity, flexibility and planning ability for innovation and growth.
Principle 7:
US: none.
EU: Researchers and research organizations should remain accountable for the social, environmental and human health impacts that their nanotechnology research may impose on present and future generations.
Of course, the comparison is unfair—one document deals with regulatory oversight, the other with voluntary research oversight. Yet when seen side by side, the principles reveal two very different philosophies behind nanotechnology development—remembering that both the US and the EU are investing heavily in nanotechnology R&D as a means to economic and social growth/improvement.
The US clearly sees business innovation as the key to reaping the rewards of nanotechnology, and the regulatory principles are designed primarily to protect innovation (while avoiding unnecessary harm to people and the environment). Europe, on the other hand, stresses the social impact of nanotechnologies in the decision-making process.
Both approaches have their merit, and I don’t mean to lift one above the other in this comparison. But to my mind, the US’ single-minded focus on innovation and economic benefits arising from a well-funded research program is exceedingly hare-like, while the socially-responsive approach being taken in the EU has tortoise overtones.
And while nanotechnology is threaded through with international collaborations, make no mistake—there is a very real global race to realizing the economic benefits of the technology ahead of the competition.
Which will win—the hare or the tortoise? Well, I’m not a betting man. But if I were, I would keep a lookout for some metaphorical snoozing this side of the Atlantic.
________________________________________________
Note: Just before posting, I discovered that the link to the OSTP memo "Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health, and Safety Oversight" no longer functioned. I will re-add this once I have the active link.
21/2/08 - The link to the OSTP memo has been added. The memo can be found here (pdf file, 80 KB)