|
Should some scientific research be forbidden? Should society demand moratoriums on certain area of scientific investigation? These are questions that a panel of experts, including a researcher from the CNS-UCBS, addressed recently at an international conference sponsored and held at the College of Law at Arizona State University. W. Patrick McCray, a historian and co-director of the CNS-UCSB, was one of three panelists who spoke about nanotechnology in the context of “forbidden science.” He was joined by Stuart Lindsay, a professor of chemistry at ASU’s Biodesign Institute and director of the Center for Single Molecular Biophysics, and Hope Shand, research director for the Erosion, Technology, and Concentration Group, a non-governmental organization. Daniel Sarewitz, Director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, moderated the panel. McCray spoke about whether hype surrounding nanotechnologies and their potential for good or ill has skewed discussion among the public and policy makers. “I think it is fair to say that nano-hype has distorted people’s expectations and apprehensions,” he noted after reviewing the prevalence of utopian and dystopian scenarios for applications of nanotechnologies. He also presented examples from the history of science in which either scientists, the public, or policy makers have attempted to “forbid” certain types of research.
After presentations by McCray, Lindsay, and Shand, members of the well-attended conference in the Great Hall at the ASU College of Law asked the panelists questions. Many audience members connected the debate over whether certain areas of nano-research or its accompanying applications should be restricted to recent controversies over genetically-modified organisms. While agreeing that there are similarities between GMOs and nanotechnologies – especially in terms of the importance of public perception – McCray suggested that scholars consider use historical examples for comparison. “In many senses, the National Nanotechnology Initiative was established to create an infrastructure for nano-research. Maybe we should look at other policies with similar objectives,” he suggested, “The space program in the 1960s, for instance, helped establish national capabilities for space exploration. With funding from the NNI, researchers wish to explore what they perceive as another new frontier.” |
