Se documenter

Depuis fort longtemps l'homme utilise de manière empirique la matière divisée pour ses propriétés particulières : les nanoparticules ont existées de tout temps à l'état naturel ; ceux des minéraux pigmentés sont utilisés depuis la préhistoire pour leur coloration dans les peintures rupestres qui ont traversé les âges. Au VIIIe siècle, les chinois découvrent la poudre noire, qui donnera plus tard naissance aux feux d'artifices puis sera utilisée à des fins militaires vers l'an mille de notre ère, bien avant de comprendre que la vitesse de combustion est inversement proportionnelle à la grosseur des grains. Au Moyen-Age les maîtres verriers fabriquaient des vitraux pour les cathédrales en ajoutant au verre des minéraux. L'origine de ces couleurs, due à la présence de grains pigmentés, insolubles dans le milieu qui les contient ne fut comprise par Gustave Mie qu'en 1907, et ce n'est que récemment que la grosseur de ces grains mesurée par microscopie électronique, révèle des particules de quelques nanomètres de diamètre. En fait c'est au cours du temps qu'émergea le concept d'un objet dont la taille, inférieure à la portée des interactions, lui confère des propriétés originales et uniques. Ce concept a donné, il y a une quinzaine d'années, naissance au terme « nano-objet » Aujourd'hui, l'élaboration de matériaux, dispositifs ou systèmes par le contrôle de la matière à l'échelle nanométrique est en pleine expansion et constitue un enjeu technologique important.

(la traduction française de ce texte sera donnée ultérieurement)

New and emerging science and technology like nanotechnologies are accompanied by promises. "The world will become a better place once nanotechnologies are allowed to develop and deliver their promise." This claim invites a closer look at the potential societal impact of nanotechnologies, as a well as a check on possible risks and negative impacts. Such considerations will necessarily be speculative: as such, and because nanotechnology itself is still mostly science fiction.

How to approach such social science fiction? And what can we discern already?
One of the difficulties is that nanotechnologies are enabling technologies: they make other technologies smaller and faster, they allow materials to become smarter etc. So they do not have an impact by themselves.
Another issue is that the promises may well exaggerate the potential of some nanotechnologies (and downplay the risks and possible negative impacts). There is hype, and nanotechnologists are becoming concerned about the disappointments that may ensue. At the present, early stage of development, it is difficult, however, to decide what is realistic and what is not.

SF writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated three laws :
First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Second Law: "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."
Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
His Third Law is now quoted, half-seriously, on websites of IBM's Almaden research center, of German nanotechnology centres.

Therefore, the quality of the process of articulating and checking social (and economic, and legal, and environmental, and ethical) aspects is more important than the various statements that are made. ELSA (Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects) studies and Constructive TA focus on improving the process. In general, one can speak of co-evolution of science, technology and society, and ELSA and CTA contribute to making the co-evolution more reflexive.

What can we say already ?
Size matters, i.e. at the nano-scale one can expect new phenomena. This also implies that there will be new risks, as are now discussed and researched for nano-particles.
The bottom-up approach is promising, but includes an element of impredictability. Inducing self-organisation of molecules, e.g. to create thin layers with interesting properties, is wonderful, but there is no assurance that the desired properties will indeed be realized. Jean-Pierre Dupuy speaks of intentional sorcerer's apprentices. Concretely, this will create problems for upscaling to industrial production, and for liability (e.g. in new ways of drug delivery).
Because of the science-fiction, and the temptation to go for interesting speculation (say, about nano-robots) and deep ethical questions (say, about human enhancement), more immediate questions are neglected. Like the shifts in industrial structures that will occur (need for design houses for new materials, integrating actors in nano-electronics) and which will shift the dynamics of development).

Governance issues: ELSA is now required by the USA Nanotechnology Act of 2003. In the UK, upstream public engagement is tried out (e.g. the recent citizen jury experiment). There is flagging of 'responsible innovation', at least from the top (Mihael Roco's international initiative). In the Netherlands, the nanotechnologists are devoting a small part of the funding they obtained to Constructive TA and ELSA studies.
Public perceptions and attitudes are a concern of nanotechnologists and public officials. Lots of unchecked projections, though: nanophobia-phobia; cf. also concern about effects of Michael Crighton's SF novel Prey. Images abound, often artist's impressions. Is a mixed blessing!

Scenarios for the near future ? Which actors will do wha ?
Insurance companies (starting with Swiss Re) have entered the scene, and made risks of nanotechnology a reality (can you still get insurance?). Nano promoters are becoming more prudent. Some firms are now downplaying the nano-connection. L'Oréal doesn't refer to nano-particles in its sun-screens anymore, but to "innovative molecules". NGOs are splitting up: some want to pursue the new possibilities of nanotechnology, but with limitations (up to moratoria) only for less savoury uses (like independent agents on the battle-field, and after). Others continue to resist new technology because it is new and creates new risks.

Come back to co-evolution: these studies and reflections must be linked (or fed back) to nano-scientists and -technologists.