Is there such a thing as a 'safe technology'?
As scientists debate the risks of nanotech, Philip Ball warns that the major impacts of emerging technologies have rarely been spotted in advance.
In today's issue of Nature, an international team of scientists presents a five-point scheme for "the safe handling of nanotechnology". "If the global research community can rise to the challenges we have set," they say, "then we can surely look forward to the advent of safe nanotechnologies."
Read the story here.
Comments
One of the problems in assessing the safety of new technologies is that there is no single definition of 'safe'. Safe for health? Safe for the environment? Safe for society? Safe for the economy?
The inclusion of social and economic impacts when assessing new technologies is particularly fraught, since inevitably, powerful technologies change the way we live and upset the balance of economies. For example, ag technologies that make food cultivation cheaper, also in the long run shift wealth from farmers to ag companies and reduce the number of farmers. This might be judged a harmful thing if you have a lot of farmers, which is why some NGOs oppose ag biotech and commercial seed markets in the developing world.
A consequence of this approach is that preserving the status quo becomes the default "safe" option, whereas new technologies, because they are, by their nature, societally and economically disruptive, are always considered risky.
Had such judgments been applied in earlier times, we would never have had the Industrial Revolution, let alone the combustion engine.
Posted by: Robert Blood | November 17, 2006 10:25 AM
As has frequently been remarked, prediction is very difficult, particularly about the future. Before we start assessing new technologies, let's see if we can agree on the acceptability of existing technologies, using the same criteria. What technologies that we have today, should we have forgone? How many of them have compensating benefits unpredictable (or at least unquantifiable) before they were introduced? Should these be taken into account? What about foreseeable risks that didn't materialise?
Posted by: Tim Roberts | November 20, 2006 12:03 PM