VII. Inclusion of Broader Impacts

Consideration of nanotechnology’s wide-ranging effects, including ethical and social impacts, must occur at each stage of the development process. Adequate assessment of both imports and exports containing nanomaterials is essential.

In addition to posing health, safety and environmental risks, nanomaterials present broader socio-economic concerns. For example, as new nanomaterials gain widespread use, they may disrupt markets for existing commodities, with potentially devastating consequences for the economies of commodity-dependent developing countries (i.e., the poorest countries).[46] The adverse impacts of granting patents for fundamental nanomaterials, which may amount to privatizing the building blocks of the natural world, must be considered and addressed. Moreover, the anticipated next generations of nanotechnologies, including the production of more sophisticated nanodevices for manufacturing, military or medical use – including enhancement of human performance – can be expected to pose complex risks as well as social and ethical challenges. Some laboratories are already engineering viruses, yeasts, and bacteria to make nanomaterials. Full public debate on all these issues will be crucial.

As with all new technologies, the allocation of research funding will shape nanotechnology’s development trajectory. Social science analyses of nanotechnology’s implications should take place alongside that of the health and environmental sciences. Social impact, ethical assessment, equity, justice and individual community preferences should guide the allocation of public funding for research. A significant proportion of this research should be community-based and designed to encourage public participation.[47] The current excessive funding of military research and meager funding for research on nanotechnology’s social challenges, and possible risks to the health of the public, workers and the environment, is unacceptable.[48] More research on the EHS (environmental, health and safety) and socioeconomic impacts of nanotechnologies is essential. This should include community action research that helps citizens understand the potential benefits and dangers of nanotechnology projects in their specific communities. That research should be publicly funded and commissioned by government agencies with clear mandates for oversight and research on EHS and socio-economic impacts. All results must be made available to the public.

46 See, e.g., The South Centre, The Potential Impact of Nanotechnologies on Commodity Markets: the Implications for Commodity Dependent Developing Countries (2005).

47 Richard E. Sclove et al., Community-Based Research in the United States: An Introductory Reconnaisance (1998).

48 I n 2006, the United States government allocated 33% of the us$1.3 billion National Nanotechnology Initiative budget to military applications. However the Woodrow Wilson Center estimated that only us$11 million (0.85% of the 2006 NNI budget) was dedicated to highly relevant research into health and environment risks. At a nanotechnology workshop held in 2005 by the United Kingdom’s Royal Society and the Science Council of Japan, representatives from the United States National Science Foundation indicated that they would spend only us$7.5 million (0.58% of the 2006 NNI budget) on research into nanotechnology’s ethical, legal and social issues.