The genetically-modified-organism (GMO) experience has been prominent in motivating science, industry, and regulatory communities to address the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. However, there are some significant problems with the GMO-nanotech analogy. First, it overstates the likelihood of a GMO-like backlash against nanotechnology. Second, it invites misconceptions about the reasons for public engagement and social and ethical issues research as well as their appropriate roles in nanotech research, development, application, commercialization, and regulatory processes. After an explication of the standard GMO-Nanotech analogy, these two problems are discussed in turn.
Brumfiel, G. (2003, July 17). A little knowledge. Nature, 424, 246-248.
2.
Crichton, M. (2002). Prey. New York: HarperCollins.
3.
Cobb, M., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.
4.
Colvin, V. (2003). Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science. Retrieved March 8, 2005, from http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/colvin.htm
5.
Comstock, G. (2000). Vexing nature? On the ethical case against agricultural biotechnology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
6.
ETC Group. (2003). The big down: Atomtech: Technologies converging at the nanoscale. Retrieved March 8, 2005, from http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf
7.
Giles, J. (2003, December 18/25). What is there to fear in something so small?Nature, 426, 750.
8.
Gorman, M. E., Groves, J. F., & Catalano, R. K. (2004). Societal dimensions of nanotechnology. Technology and Society, 23, 55-62.
9.
Joy, B. (2000, April). Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired Magazine. Retrieved March 8, 2005, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
10.
Kulinowski, K. (2004). Nanotechnology: From ‘wow’ to ‘yuck.’Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 24, 13-20.
11.
McKibben, B. (2003). Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York: Times.
12.
Mehta, M. D. (2004). From biotechnology to nanotechnology: What can we learn from earlier technologies. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 24, 34-39.
13.
Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2003). ‘Mind the gap’: Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, 14, R9-R13.
14.
Moore, J. (2002, November). Lessons from the GMO and Frankenfood debate: Building public trust in new technology and science. Presentation at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC. RetrievedMarch8,2005, from http://www.environmentalfutures.org/nanotech.htm
15.
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. (2004). Genetic modification: The New Zealand approach. Retrieved March 8, 2005, from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/organisms/gm-nz-approach-jun04/index.html
16.
Rifkin, J. (1983). Algeny: a new word, a new world. New York: Viking.
17.
Roco, M. C. (2003). Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5, 181-189.
18.
Shiva, V. (1999). Stolen harvest. Cambridge, MA: South End.
19.
Steinbruner, J. D. (2002). The cybernetic theory of decision: New dimensions of political analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Sweeney, A. E., Seal, S., & Vaidyanathan, P. (2003). The promises and perils of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Exploring emerging social and ethical issues. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 23, 236-245.
21.
The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Author.
22.
UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2004, March 9). Margaret Beckett Outlines Precautionary Approach to GM Crops. Retrieved March 8, 2005, from http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/040309a.htm
23.
United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. (2004). The state of food and agriculture 2003-2004, agricultural biotechnology: Meeting the needs of the poor?Rome: Author.
24.
Wilsdon, J. (2004). The politics of small things: Nanotechnology, risk and uncertainty. Technology and Society, 23, 16-21.
25.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
26.
Woodhouse, E. J. (2004). Nanotech controversies. Technology and Society, 23, 6-8.
