Nanowissenschaft und Nanotechnologien: Möglichkeiten und Ungewissheiten

Dieser Bericht illustriert die Vorteile und den derzeitigen
und künftigen Nutzen der Nanotechnologien. Er betont indes
ebenfalls, dass eine öffentliche Diskussion über diese Entwicklung
erforderlich ist.

1. Hopes and concerns about nanoscience and
nanotechnologies 

Nanoscience and nanotechnologies are widely seen as having huge
potential to bring benefits in areas as diverse as drug
development, water decontamination, information and communication
technologies, and the production of stronger, lighter materials.
They are attracting rapidly increasing investments from governments
and from businesses in many parts of the world; it has been
estimated that total global investment in nanotechnologies is
currently around € 5 billion, € 2 billion of which comes from
private sources. 

The number of published patents in nanotechnology increased
fourfold from 1995 (531 parents) to 2001 (1976 patents). Although
it is too early to produce reliable figures for the global market,
one widely quoted estimate puts the annual value for all
nanotechnologies-related products (including information and
communication technologies) at $1 trillion by 2011–2015. 

Although many people believe that nanotechnologies will have an
impact across a wide range of sectors, a survey of experts in
nanotechnologies across the world identified hype (‘misguided
promises that nanotechnology can fix everything’) as the factor
most likely to result in a backlash against it. 

Against this background of increased research funding and
interest from industry, several nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) and some nanotechnologists have expressed concerns about
current and potential future developments of nanotechnology. These
include uncertainties about the impact of new nanomaterials on
human health, questions about the type of applications that could
arise from the expected convergence, in the longer term, of
nanotechnologies with technologies such as biotechnology,
information technology (IT) and artificial intelligence, and
suggestions that future developments might bring self-replicating
nano-robots that might devastate the world.

Others have questioned the adequacy of current regulatory
frameworks to deal with these new developments, and whether
applications will benefit or disenfranchise developing countries
(Arnall 2003). 

The media has reflected the hopes and concerns about nanoscience
and nanotechnology. 

In January 2003 the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF)
published its report Scientific Research: Innovation with Controls
(Better Regulation Task Force 2003), which included a consideration
of nanotechnologies. Its first recommendation was that the UK
Government should enable the public, through debate, to consider
the risks of nanotechnologies for themselves. 

Other recommendations advocated openness in decision making,
involving the public in the decision-making process, developing
two-way communication channels and taking a strong lead over the
handling of any issues of risk to emerge from
nanotechnologies. 

In its response to the first recommendation, the Government
stated that there was currently no obvious focus for an informed
debate, but that it was initiating work that would ‘examine whether
there were any areas of nanotechnology which raise or will raise
specific safety, environmental or ethical issues’ that would
warrant further study. 

2. Terms of reference and conduct of the
study 

In June 2003, following its response to the BRTF, the UK
Government commissioned the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of
Engineering (the UK’s national academies of science and of
engineering, respectively) to conduct an independent study on
nanotechnology. 

The terms of reference of our study, jointly agreed by the
Office of Science and Technology and the two Academies, were as
follows: 

• define what is meant by nanoscience and nanotechnology; ·
  summarise the current state of scientific knowledge about
  nanotechnology; 
• identify the specific applications of the new technologies, in
  particular where nanotechnology is already in use; 
• carry out a forward look to see how the technology might be
  used in future, where possible estimating the likely time-scales in
  which the most far-reaching applications of the technology might
  become reality; 
• identify what environmental, health and safety, ethical or
  societal implications or uncertainties may arise from the use of
  the technology, both current and future; 
• identify areas where regulation needs to be
  considered. 

The two academies convened a multidisciplinary working group of
experts in science and engineering, medicine, social science,
consumer affairs, ethical issues and the environment to conduct
this study. The study was conducted independently of Government,
which was not involved in the selection of the working group
members or its methods of working, and which did not view the
report before it was printed. 

We received much written evidence, and we held a series of oral
evidence sessions and workshops with a range of stakeholders from
the UK and overseas. The volume of evidence that was sent in for
the Working Group to consider and follow up extended the time taken
to complete this project beyond that originally
anticipated. 

At the outset of the study it was agreed that the report should
include public concerns and that data should be collected about
public awareness of nanotechnology, which could form important
baseline data. The market research company BMRB International was
commissioned to research public attitudes to nanotechnology, which
took the form of two workshops and a short market survey. 

3 Report overview 

In Chapter 2 we introduce nanoscience and nanotechnologies, and
explain the definitions of each that we used during the
study. 

In Chapter 3 we give examples of key current research, and
current and potential future advances in: nanomaterials;
nanometrology; electronics, optoelectronics and ICT; and
bio-nanotechnology. We also look at the benefits they are currently
providing and might provide in the short, medium and longer
term. 

In Chapter 4 we look at current and possible future industrial
applications of nanotechnology, and examine some of the barriers to
its take-up by industry. 

In Chapters 3 and 4 we have provided an overview (rather than a
detailed assessment) of current and potential future developments
in, and applications of, nanoscience and nanotechnologies, against
which health, safety, environmental, social and ethical
implications (addressed later in the report) could be
considered. 

The Taylor report reviewed the state of nanotechnology
applications in industry in the UK and proposed a series of actions
to accelerate and support increased industrial investment in the
exploitation of nanotechnology in the UK. It was not our intention
to critique or update the Taylor report or to identify research
priorities for nanoscience and nanotechnology. The House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee has recently evaluated the
implementation of the recommendations of the Taylor
report 

In Chapter 5 we evaluate the potential health, safety and
environmental implications of nanotechnologies, and in Chapter 6 we
consider the potential social and ethical implications. In both
chapters we identify the main gaps in knowledge related to the
potential impacts of nanotechnologies. 

Chapter 7 outlines the results of our commissioned research into
public attitudes to nanotechnology in Great Britain, and considers
the role of multi-stakeholder dialogue in the future development of
nanotechnologies. 

The implications of our conclusions for the current regulatory
framework are outlined in Chapter 8. 

Finally, Chapters 9 and 10 contain our overall conclusions and
list our recommendations. 

To read the report in full, visit the Royal Academy’s website.