what can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology, 2008, p.361

WHAT CAN NANOTECHNOLOGY LEARN FROM
BIOTECHNOLOGY?
Food Science and Technology
International Series
Series Editor
Steve L. Taylor
University of Nebraska – Lincoln, USA
Advisory Board
Ken Buckle
The University of New South Wales, Australia
Mary Ellen Camire
University of Maine, USA
Roger Clemens
University of Southern California, USA
Hildegarde Heymann
University of California – Davis, USA
Robert Hutkins
University of Nebraska – Lincoln, USA
Ron S. Jackson
Quebec, Canada
Huub Lelieveld
Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Daryl B. Lund
University of Wisconsin, USA
Connie Weaver
Purdue University, USA
Ron Wrolstad
Oregon State University, USA
A complete list of books in this series appears at the end of this volume.
What Can

Nanotechnology
Learn from
Biotechnology?
Social and Ethical Lessons
for Nanoscience from the
Debate over Agrifood
Biotechnology and GMOs
Edited by
Kenneth David, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology,
Michigan State University
Paul B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Departments of Philosophy,
Agricultural Economics, and Community, Agriculture,
Recreation and Resource Studies,
Michigan State University
AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD
PARIS • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA
84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8RR, UK
525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4495, USA
First edition 2008
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher
Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights
Department in Oxford, UK: phone (ϩ44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (ϩ44) (0) 1865

853333; email: Alternatively you can submit your
request online by visiting the Elsevier web site at />permissions, and selecting Obtaining permission to use Elsevier material
Notice
No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to
persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or
from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained
in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particu-
lar, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-012-373990-2
Typeset by Charon Tec Ltd (A Macmillan Company), Chennai, India
www.charontec.com
Printed and bound in the United States of America
080910111210 987654321
For information on all Academic Press publications
visit our web site at books.elsevier.com
Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
PART 1 Analytic Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 Socio-Technical Analysis of those Concerned
with Emerging Technology, Engagement, and
Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Kenneth David
In a nutshell: our audiences and our core objective . . . . 4
Nano-benefits, nano-issues, nano-fears,

and reactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Objectives of this volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Contending perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Roadmap to this volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Internet references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
PART 2 Looking Back to the Bio Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2 Learning from Mistakes: Missteps in Public
Acceptance Issues with GMOs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Alan McHughen
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Problems with terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
What is genetic modification/genetic
engineering/biotechnology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
History of biotechnology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
How is biotechnology (rDNA) used?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Applications of biotechnology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Red and green biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Biotechnology has been compared to a train . . . . . . . . 41
Risks: real and perceived . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Distinguishing perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3 The Ethics of Agri-Food Biotechnology: How
Can an Agricultural Technology be so Important? . . . 55
Jeffrey Burkhardt
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
The environmental ethics of agbiotech . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

The safety of GM foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Ethics and choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Ethics and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Conclusion: whither nanotechnology ethics? . . . . . . . . 74
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Internet references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4 A View from the Advocacy Community . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Margaret Mellon
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Basics of the biotechnology debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Continuing controversy for agricultural and food
applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Classifying nanotechnology risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Consequences if nanochemicals present
special risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Three lessons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
PART 3 Questioning the Analogy (From Bio to Nano) . . . 89
5 The Three Teachings of Biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Mickey Gjerris
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
What are we talking about? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
If you do not agree with me you must be stupid! . . . . . 96
A one-sided dialogue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Internet references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
vi Contents
6 From Bio to Nano: Learning the Lessons,
Interrogating the Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Philip Macnaghten
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Learning from the past . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Learning from the present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Lessons for nanotechnologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7 Nano and Bio: How are they Alike? How are
they Different? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Paul B. Thompson
Why nanotechnology may not be much like
biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Hypothesis 1: food technologies are sensitive . . . . . . . 130
Hypothesis 2: the naturalness thing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Hypothesis 3: playing God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Hypothesis 4: environmental release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Hypothesis 5: public educational efforts are
inoculating nanotechnology against public
opposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Hypothesis 6: agrifood biotechnology was
narrow, nanotechnology is broad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Hypothesis 7: no benefit to consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Hypothesis 8: lack of confidence in the
regulatory system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Hypothesis 9: intellectual property rights . . . . . . . . . . 146
Hypothesis 10: changing relations of economic power 148
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Internet references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
8 “It’s Like Déjà-Vu, All Over Again”: Anticipating

Societal Responses to Nanotechnologies . . . . . . . . . 157
Amy K. Wolfe and David J. Bjornstad
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
How many more times will we be “surprised” by
societal responses? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Why is the same technology sometimes accepted and
sometimes rejected in apparently similar
circumstances? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
To what extent can we accurately anticipate
societal responses and acceptability? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
How can, or should, society make better-informed
decisions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Contents vii
Agricultural nanotechnologies—members of a
class of technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Patterns of societal response can be anticipated. . . . . 164
Suggesting a conceptual framework: PACT . . . . . . . . . 165
Conclusion: a call for a convergent science of societal
response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Internet references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
PART 4 Areas of Ambiguity in Implementing an
Emerging Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
9 A Framework for Translating Biotechnology
Experiences to Nanotechnology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
David Sparling
New technologies from discovery to market . . . . . . . . 176
From science to technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Radical technologies and innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Innovation and agricultural biotechnology . . . . . . . . . 180
New technologies and industry structure . . . . . . . . . . 183
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
10 Engagement and Translation: Perspective
of a Natural Scientist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Hans Geerlings and Kenneth David
Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Translation issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Internet references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
11 Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Media, and
Public Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Susanna Priest
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Problematizing the categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Media and public opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Social constructions of “the public” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
viii Contents
PART 5 Looking Forward to the Nano Situation . . . . . . . 235
12 Lessons from the Bio-Decade: A Social Scientific
Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
George Gaskell
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Understanding the process of innovation . . . . . . . . . . 239
Questioning sound science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Perspectives on risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Menacing images and magical thinking . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Uncertainty and anxiety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Weighing up gains and losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Truth claims and communicating science . . . . . . . . . . 253
Changing science, changing societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Implications for nanotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
13 What Can Nanotechnology Learn from
Biotechnology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Lawrence Busch and John R. Lloyd
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Scientific innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
The process of innovation of new products
in biotechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Processes of variable regulation of biotechnology . . . . 266
Furor over bovine growth hormone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
The major actors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Recent developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Conclusions: lessons identified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Internet references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Appendix I A Primer on Genetic Engineering . . . . . . . . 277
Appendix II Report from the Standards for
Nanotechnology Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Appendix III List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Appendix IV Participants at First International

IFAS Conference on Nanotechnology “What Can
Nano Learn from Bio?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Appendix V Participants in the “Standards for
Nanotechnology” Workshop, 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Contents ix
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the National Science Foundation (NSF).
1
Both the 2005 “What Can Nano Learn from Bio?” International
Conference and Workshop and the 2006 “Standards for Nano-
technology” workshop were supported by a National Science
Foundation/Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams Grant:
Building Capacity for Social and Ethical Research and Education in
Agrifood Nanotechnology (SES-0403847). In particular, we give
thanks to Rachelle Hollander (retired), Mihail Roco, Rita Teutonico,
and Priscilla Regan of NSF. We further thank the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation for support extended through the W.K. Kellogg Endowed
Professorship in Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics.
The 2005 international conference was sparked by opening
remarks from Lou Anna K. Simon, President of Michigan State
University.
Event planning and report preparation are truly collaborative
efforts and this workshop was no exception. Special thanks are due
the following people for their roles in helping to plan, organize, and
host the 2005 conference and the 2006 workshop: Julie Eckinger,
Sibbir Noman, Scott Menhart, Jim Sumbler, Linda Estill, Mary
Keyes, Nicole Schoendorf, and Jill Crandell for administrative,

logistical and secretarial support; Brian Cools and Linda Currier for
graphic design.
Event delivery at the 2005 Conference—convened at Kellogg
Hotel & Conference Center: Tammi J. Cady, Rhonda Bucholtz, and
1. The views expressed here are those of the conference and workshop participants and
reviewers, and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation,
Michigan State University, or the participants’employers.
Bill Burke. Event delivery at the 2006 Workshop—convened at
Cowles House: Peter Lechloer and Theresa Pharms.
Thanks to graduate research assistants Sho (Lisa) Ngai, Meghan
Sullivan, Norbismi Nordin, Brian Depew, Zahra Meghani, and
William Hannah and undergraduate research assistants Lawrence
Judd, Erin Pullen, and Keiko Tanaka for their help in taking notes
and recordings made at the conference and workshops. This mate-
rial made a contribution to both the Introduction and the Standards
workshop report. John Stone had primary responsibility for assem-
bling the report. Thanks to Marc Erbisch and Erin Pullen for many
hours of help in preparing the chapter manuscripts for publication.
Further thanks to Nancy Maragioglio, Editor and Claire Hutchins,
Project Manager from Academic/Elsevier who worked closely and
effectively with us in producing this volume.
Thanks to Agrifood Nanotechnology Project research project mem-
bers Les Bourquin, Lawrence Busch, Kenneth David, Brady Deaton,
Tom Dietz, John Lloyd, Susan Selke, John Stone, Deepa Thiagarajan,
and Paul Thompson; the Department of Sociology, the Department
of Anthropology, the Department of Community, Agriculture,
Recreation and Resource Studies, the Department of Packaging, the
College of Social Science and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Station—all at Michigan State University; and, of course, thanks to the
workshop attendees without whose enthusiastic participation the

workshop would not have been possible.
xii Acknowledgments
Preface
The rapid growth of nanoscience and nanotechnology is a global and
widely acknowledged phenomenon. In Europe and the United States
in particular, the rapid increase in both public and private investment
in nono-scale science and technology has been accompanied by
statements recognizing the need to steer the process in a democratic
fashion and to secure broad public acceptance. The international
controversy over genetically engineered crops and livestock is often
mentioned in this connection. Commentators from industry, govern-
ment and public interest organizations alike pledge to “learn the les-
sons,” from the successes and failures of scientists, regulators and
companies who developed the technology that came to be popularly
known as “genetically modified organisms,” or GMOs.
But what were those lessons? This volume is the result of a sys-
tematically planned research activity designed to answer that ques-
tion. To that end, the editors and several colleagues at Michigan State
University undertook a three year process to survey literature on the
GMO controversy, contact a number of authors who had made dis-
tinguished contributions to that literature, and to bring them together
in a workshop setting with others who were undertaking both techni-
cal applications in nano-scale science and engineering as well as
schlorship on the processes of governance and public acceptance of
nanotechnology. This volume is the end product of that research,
consisting of reflective and critical essays written by just a few of the
participants in this iterative interdisciplinary research project. We
owe an enormous debt to all of those who participated in our work-
shop, as well as to all the members of Michigan State Agrifood
Nanotechnology Research Team responsible for planning and

conducting the research. Research assistants for the project were
especially important in actually making the nuts and bolts of the
conference and workshop work. These names are listed in the acknowl-
edgments and in appendices to the volume.
We would like, however, to make special note of the career contri-
bution that Dr. Rachelle Hollander has made to research on the social
and ethical issues in science and engineering. Her important research
contributions speak for themselves. What may be less evident to out-
siders is the continuing role that she played at the National Science
Foundation in finding an institutional home for this work, not to
mention dollars to support it. Her last assignment at NSF before enter-
ing what we hope will be a well earned but still productive retirement
was to help lay the foundations for the program in Social and Ethical
Issues in Nanotechnology component of the National Nanotech-
nology Initiative. Without that work, this volume would truly have
been impossible. It is to Rachelle that this book is dedicated.
xiv Preface
About the Authors
David J. Bjornstad, Society-Technology Interactions Group, Envi-
ronmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. His research centers on the economic policy
analysis on topics dealing with science policy and energy environ-
ment and natural resources policy, applied microeconomic theory,
natural resource valuation, and experimental economics. He received
a Ph.D. in Economics from Syracuse University in 1973.
Jeffrey Burkhardt, Professor of Agriculture and Natural Resource
Ethics and Policy, Food and Resource Economics Department
(FRED), Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida. He received his Ph.D. in Philosophy with a graduate minor
in Economics from Florida State University in 1979, and joined the

faculty of the University of Florida in 1985. He currently teaches
courses on Agriculture and Natural Resource Ethics, Science
Ethics, and the Philosophy of Economics.
Lawrence Busch, University Distinguished Professor of Sociology
and Director of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards at
Michigan State University. His interests include food and agricul-
tural standards, food safety policy, biotechnology policy agricultural
science and technology policy, higher education in agriculture, and
public participation in the policy process.
Kenneth David, Ph.D., M.B.A. is Associate Professor of
Organizational Anthropology and Trans-Cultural Management at
Michigan State University. He received his Ph.D. from the
University of Chicago and his M.B.A. from Michigan State
University. His organizational Anthropology research in France,
Holland, India, South Korea, Sir Lanka and the United States,
focuses on such inter-organizational relationships as acquisitions,
joint ventures, and engineering outsourcing design projects.
George Gaskell, Professor of Social Psychology, Pro-Director of
the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is
Associated Director of BIOS, the Centre for the study of
Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society at the LSE.
From a background in social psychology, his research focuses on
science, technology and society, in particular the issues of risk and
trust, how social values influence people’s views about technologi-
cal innovation, and the governance of science and technology.
Mickey Gjerris, Assistant Professor, Danish Centre for Bioethics
and Risk Assessment (CeBRA), University of Copenhagen. His
research falls mainly within the areas of bio- and nanotechnology,
especially focusing on the ethical issues surrounding the use of ani-
mals and the novel technologies. This research is embedded in the

context of ethics of nature and religious philosophy and has as its
point of departure the philosophical tradition phenomenology.
Hans Geerlings, Shell Global Solutions International B.V. and
Delft University of Technology. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics from
the University of Amsterdam. He does exploratory research – work-
ing as a Principal Researcher at the Shell Research and Technology
Center and as a Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Applied Sciences
at Delft University of Technology. His research interests include
hydrogen storage in metal and complex hydrides, as well as carbon
dioxide sequestration through mineralization.
John R. Lloyd, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Michigan
State University is a University Distinguished Professor of
Mechanical Engineering. His research program includes the emerg-
ing areas o energy transport at the nano and molecular length scales,
which will have application in developing such diverse areas as
thermal energy transport in Agrifood systems, thermoelectric
devices, fuel cells, and energy efficiency in phase change heat trans-
port in structured, micro, nano, and molecular scale thin film coat-
ings on particles such as seeds and agri-elements.
Alan McHughen, Department of Botany and Plant Sciences,
University of California-Riverside. After earning his doctorate at
Oxford University, he worked at Yale and the University of
Saskatchewan before joining the University of California, Riverside.
A molecular geneticist with an interest in applying biotechnology for
xvi About the Authors
sustainable agriculture and safe food production, he served on recent
National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine and OECD pan-
els investigating the environmental and health effects of genetically
engineered plants and foods.
Philip Mancnaghten, Phil Macnaghten, Professor of Geography

and Director, Institute of Hazard and Risk Research (IHRR),
Durham University. He holds a degree in Psychology (1987,
Southampton) and a Ph.D. in Social Psychology (1991, Exeter). He
studies the cultural dimensions of technology and innovation policy
and their intersection with the environment and everyday practice.
Margaret Mellon, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington,
DC. She came to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in 1993
to direct a new program on agriculture. The program promotes a
transition to sustainable agriculture and currently has two main
focuses: critically evaluating the use of biotechnology in plant and
animal agriculture and assessing animal agriculture’s contribution
to the rise of antibiotic-resistant diseases in people. Trained as a sci-
entist and lawyer, she received both her Ph.D. and J.D degrees from
the University of Virginia.
Susanna Priest, Professor, Hank Greenspun School of Journalism
& Media Studies, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her research
and teaching focus on communicating science technology, environ-
ment and health; public perceptions of policy issues and public
opinion formation, especially for these areas; mass media’s chang-
ing role in society; media theory and research methods.
David Sparling, Associate Dean, Research and Graduate Studies,
College of Management and Economies, University of Guelph. He
was formerly and Associate Professor in the Food, Agriculture and
Resource Economics at University of Guelph. He also farmed for
twenty years near Cambridge, Ontario and has been president of an
agribusiness insurance company and a biotechnology start-up. He is
also a Senior Associate at the University of Melbourne. His teach-
ing and research interests are in the areas of operations and supply
chain management and commercialization of new technologies
including a study of biotechnology IPOs in Australia and Canada.

Paul B.Thompson, Professor of Philosophy, Agriculture Economics
and Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies and
W. K. Kellogg Chair in Agricultural, Food and Community Ethics,
Michigan State University. He formerly held positions in philosophy
About the Authors xvii
at Texas A&M University and Purdue University. His research has
centered on ethical and philosophical questions associated with agri-
culture and food, and especially concerning the guidance and devel-
opment of agricultural technoscience.
Any K.Wolf, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,Tennessee.
She leads the Society-Technology Interactions Group within the
Environmental Sciences Division. Much of her research centers on
the processes by which society makes and implements decisions
about controversial and complex science, technology, and environ-
mental issues. In addition, her work focuses on linkages between the
conduct of science and the use of science in decision making. She
received a Masters degree in Regional Planning and a doctorate in
Anthropology from the University of Pennsylvania.
xviii About the Authors
Analytic
Introduction
PART
1
1 Socio-Technical Analysis of those Concerned
with Emerging Technology, Engagement,
and Governance 3
This page intentionally left blank
Socio-Technical
Analysis of those
Concerned with

Emerging
Technology,
Engagement, and
Governance
Kenneth David
1
In a nutshell: our audiences and our core objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Nano-benefits, nano-issues, nano-fears, and reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Objectives of this volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Contending perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Roadmap to this volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Internet references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology?
ISBN: 978-012-373990-2
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
In a nutshell: our
1
audiences and
our core objective
The emerging field of nanotechnology attracts antagonists (proponents
and opponents), analysts from various disciplines, and a set of stake-
holders: scientists, engineers, technology developers, research admin-
istrators, policymakers, standards-setting and regulatory agencies,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and business executives,
consumers, and citizens. This introduction addresses these diverse
audiences with a communication strategy I learned from Ted Koppel,

formerly of ABC News: Do not assume that the audience is ignorant.
Also do not assume that the audience is sufficiently informed.
What can these antagonists, analysts, and stakeholders learn from
the international controversy over the use of biotechnology involv-
ing recombinant DNA techniques in agriculture to produce “genet-
ically modified organisms”? Biotechnology faced obstacles both
in governance (standards-setting and regulatory agencies) and in
social acceptance by buyers in the supply chain and by the public.
The multinational agriculture and biotechnology company Monsanto,
for example, withdrew its modified potatoes after they were rejected
by two major buyers: Frito Lay and McDonald’s. Monsanto’s genet-
ically modified (GM) corn seed was passed by governing agencies
and accepted by farmers but faced much resistance from the final
buyer—the consumer.
So can lessons from biotechnology be effectively modified and
applied to the much broader field of technologies collectively called
“nanotechnology”?
The objective of this volume is to collect analyses with different
perspectives but with the common goal of providing lessons from
biotechnology for nanotechnology. In it, the contributors present
issues that occurred during the development of biotechnology and
effective practices for responding to these issues that provide partial
orientation for the development of nanotechnology. Each new tech-
nology (such as nuclear energy and biotechnology) poses particular
challenges and hazards as well as benefits. There are environmental,
social, and ethical impacts as well as technical and economic impacts.
Formal standards, codes, and effective practices developed to
deal with the impacts of earlier technologies cannot be applied
wholesale to another new technology. Modifications in standards
and practices must be made. In this volume, we study historical

4 What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology?
practices in order to modify them as necessary to meet the current
set of impacts.
In Chapter 13, Busch and Lloyd succinctly set out a more specific
set of questions: “Will the new nanotechnologies encounter the
same or similar resistance? Are there lessons that we can learn by
examining the failures and successes of agricultural biotechnolo-
gies? Can we shape the new nanotechnologies as well as respond to
the concerns of critics and skeptics? What lessons can we learn
from the experiences with the agricultural biotechnologies that will
help us avoid the same result with the design of nanotechnological
products and processes? What actions on the part of companies
and governments might ensure the rapid and satisfactory resolution
of concerns about nanotechnologies? What actions are likely to
enhance public support for the promises that these new technologies
bring? And what actions are likely to diminish that support?”
Finally, the overall intention of this volume is to make a collec-
tion of diverse perspectives on the topic of emerging technology.
The objective of this introduction, then, is to highlight the contribu-
tion of this volume: to recognize contending perspectives with
which various stakeholders or analysts deal with a controversial
new technology.
This introductory chapter begins with a section on nano-benefits,
nano-issues, nano-fears, and reactions, continues with a section on
the objectives of this volume, and concludes with a “roadmap” to
this volume.
Nano-benefits, nano-issues,
nano-fears, and reactions
“Nanotechnology” relates to the science and engineering of materi-
als and devices with dimensions between 1 and 100 nanometers.

One nanometer is one billionth of a meter (approximately 80000
times smaller than a human hair).
New technologies always stir controversy over hazards and bene-
fits, and nanotechnology is no exception. It creates hope and excite-
ment about possible breakthroughs for solving some of society’s
pressing problems. It raises social, ethical, and legal issues, and it
also raises fears—angst that “nature” becomes partially constructed
by humans.
Socio-Technical Analysis 5
Nano-benefits
Why did the US Government invest more than $1 billion in nanotech-
nologies in 2005? Possible nano-benefits are no secret. Berube’s
Nano-Hype (2006) amply records the extraordinary, “hyperbolic”
claims made for applications of nanotechnology and Mehta (2004)
provides a selection of applications expected to emerge from
advances in nanoscience:
Environmental
●
Remediation of contaminated soil and water
●
Reduction in the use of raw materials through improvements in
manufacturing
●
Rebuilding the stratospheric ozone layer with the assistance of
nanobots.
Medical
●
Improvements in the delivery of drugs
●
Development of techniques in nanosurgery

●
Mechanisms to repair defective DNA
●
Improved diagnostic procedures.
Electronic
●
Development of molecular circuit boards
●
Improved storage of data
●
Development of molecular computers.
Materials
●
Industrially valuable fibers with increased strength
●
Replication of valuable products (e.g. food, diamonds)
●
Improvements in the quality and reliability of metals and plastics
●
Manufacture of “smart” materials.
The notion of a single “nanotechnology” is erroneous. In reality
we are dealing with many nanotechnologies with multiple functions
and multiple directions.
Nanotechnology is expected to foster a multi-billion dollar business
with “nanomaterials” playing a prominent role. Among nanomateri-
als are polymer nanocomposites. Polymer nanocomposites have
emerged as a new class of materials that has attracted the attention of
researchers and industry across the world. Polymer nanocomposites
6 What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology?