NANOTECHNOLOGY is set to affect almost every aspect of our lives, displacing older technologies and enabling radically new products and processes. This is a bold claim, but it has pretty much become established doctrine among the governments of the major economies. If it is even half right, the implications are profound. How should society respond to this coming revolution? Will we be in a position to participate, or will we be passive receivers or rejectors of innovations concocted by a handful of technologists?
Greenpeace sees merit in lots of technologies, but not all: we campaign to promote renewable energy technology and cleaner waste management, but to halt nuclear power and genetically modified crops. With key frontiers such as AI, robotics and nanotechnology it is easy to speculate about possible societal outcomes. But we wanted to ground our view on a solid understanding of what such technologies are capable of. That is why we commissioned experts at Imperial College London to carry out a thorough science-based survey of their prospects.
In the case of nanotechnology, the report foresees valuable innovations, but also some causes for concern. Nanotechnology could offer a route towards the goal of the clean energy system we so desperately need if we are to avoid climate change, air pollution and nuclear waste. But the priorities accorded to environmental and social protection in the nanotech agenda seem low. How can civil society influence technology agendas still largely dictated by a few?
A technology that is fundamentally about making new things or making them in a different way will, sooner or later, have some impact on our environment. This could