Tag Archives: NanoTrust

European Union’s NanoCode to be extended to all European science?

Leave a reply

The Feb. 5, 2013 Nanowerk Spotlight article is given over to a description of a report on the European Union’s NanoCode Project and recommendations from NanoTrust, a project of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, from spotlight article (Note: Footnotes have been removed),

The [European] Commission recommendation for a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (code of conduct) dates from 2008. Nevertheless, it continues to be a subject of discussion.

Thus the 2012 final report on the NanoCode research project, which has been monitoring the development and implementation of the nanotechnology code over two years, recommends inter alia that the principles and guidelines of the code be extended to all new technologies and to science as a whole. The initiative for a Commission recommendation on “Responsible research and innovation”, launched by the EU Commission in March 2012 adopts the same approach: The principles and guidelines of the code of conduct should be extended to all technologies and also include production and application.

There are difficulties (implementation issues) associated with implementing the NanoCode, which should be obvious from a glance at the responsibilities/obligations, from the NanoTrust dossier no. 36en, December 2012, The EU code of conduct for nanosciences and nanotechnologies research PDF (4 pp),

“Obligations” on the basis of the code

Researchers

• Research in the public interest

• Consideration of fundamental ethical principles and fundamental rights

• Risk research as an element of all applications for funds

• Responsibility for the consequences of research

Research funding bodies

• Research priorities with respect to socially useful research, risk assessment, metrology and standardisation

• Uniformity of standardisation and metrology

• Accountability in the light of research priorities

• Publication of the cost-benefits assessment of funded projects

Member States

• Collaboration between Member States and the Commission

• Monitoring and control systems

• Dissemination

• Encouragement of research in accordance with the code

• Annual report on application and measures within the framework of the code

EU Commission

• Compliance with the code when granting research funding

• Collaboration with the Member States

• Review of the code every two years

• Dissemination (p. 3)

In addition to implementation, there are issues about authority, compatibility within various legal frameworks, and language, from the spotlight article,

The code is the subject matter of discussions in the legal world. Specifically, the discussion addresses (1) whether the Commission has any jurisdiction to issue such a recommendation; (2) in what manner it could take effect de facto and de jure; (3) whether the principles of the code are sufficiently specific; and (4) whether individual guidelines are compatible with the fundamental rights of the freedom of science.

…

There is also a need to construe the principal responsibility laid down under accountability. In the German version of the code, it is not clear whether this accountability (“Rechenschaftspflicht”) is a legal responsibility or is intended to encourage a “culture of responsibility” (4.1). The term “accountability” in the English version tends not to suggest a legal obligation to render accounts. [emphases mine]

While prospects for implementing the NanoCode are not good, this dossier from NanoTrust provides good insight into the complexities of arriving at agreements of any kind. Documents for the NanoCode project can be found here.

Analysis of German language media coverage of nanotechnology

Leave a reply

Austria’s NanoTrust project published, in October 2012, a dossier tittled: Nanotechnology in the media; On the reporting in representative daily newspapers in Austria, Germany and Switzerland which has been highlighted in a Jan. 21, 2013 Nanowerk Spotlight article (Note: Footnotes have been removed),

The media can have a significant influence on the public image of science and technology, in the specific case nanotechnology. This is true in particular if only a small percentage of the population only comes directly into contact with such fields of research. Mass media reporting serves to increase awareness of selected topics, informs about current debates involving a wide variety of actors who need to be heard and thus also prepares a basis for future social debates. The population is introduced to central aspects of technical applications, which also include the opportunities and risks associated with the new technologies.

…

A media analysis has been conducted of selected quality newspapers within the framework of the “NanoPol” project [cooperation between the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology (KIT), the Institute for Technology Assessment (ITA) at the Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW), TA-Swiss in Berne and the Programme for Science Research of the University of Basel], which analyses the nanotechnology policies of Austria, Germany and Switzerland.

Quality newspapers are characterised by their target group, comprising persons who have a specific interest in national events and information and who are of significance as multipliers for opinion formation amongst the national public. At the same time, mass media as an ongoing observer in the public can contribute to determining the significance of the topic for the public discussion. For each country, two print media were investigated, the investigation period extending over ten years (2000-2009):

– Der Standard and Die Presse (A);

– Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and die Süddeutsche Zeitung (D);

– Neue Züricher Zeitung and der Tagesanzeiger (CH).

The media analysis covered almost 2000 articles produced between 2000 and 2009,

Roughly 44 % of all articles were accounted for by the two German print media, while Switzerland and Austria had a share of 29 % and 27 % respectively, with in each case one national newspaper having published significantly more articles with nanotechnology topics. At the beginning of the investigation period, the frequency of articles still varied considerably in the different countries, but converged towards the end of the period.

The reports on nanotechnology are overwhelmingly (88 %) to be found in fact-focused report formats such as news reports or background coverage, while a small percentage of the contributions are drawn up in the form of interviews, comments and essays.

There’s a bit of a surprise (to me) concerning popular topics in that medical applications don’t place first in terms of interest,

Topics related to basic research, which for instance include toxicology and risk research, constituted an in part clear majority in all three countries. Applications in the field of information and communication technology, extending from data media to sensors, were the second most frequently referred to topic. Medical applications, from diagnostics to specific therapies, occupied third place in all three countries, although relatively speaking there were somewhat more reports about medical topics in Austria than in the other two countries.  [emphases mine] Reports from the field of business and politics, dealing above all with companies, research subsidies, environment and economic policies, occupied places four and five.

The conclusion of this Spotlight article seems to hint at a little disappointment,

The reporting on nanotechnology in the media in the three German-speaking countries is largely science-centred and attracts a generally low level of attention amongst the broad public thanks to its less emphasised placing. There is hardly any opinion-focused reporting, with classical news reports and reports relating to current research activities or events predominating. In all three countries, the newspapers’ science departments play a dominant role, and scientists also play a central role as actors.

…

An event-focused positive representation predominates. A focus on risks and controversial reporting, a concern raised regularly in expert circles, was not proven in the present study. Risk topics play a role in fewer than 20 % of articles; the benefits and opportunities of nanotechnology, on the other hand, are mentioned in 80 % of all articles.

Benefits are seen above all for science. Scientific actors are likewise mentioned relatively frequently, which indicates the close connections between science and business, and the economic expectations of nanotechnology. One would have to examine the extent to which the absence of controversies can be attributed to the hitherto lack of evidence of possible dangers and risks or to well-functioning strategic scientific PR work. [emphasis mine]

Why mention  “well-functioning strategic scientific PR work” in the conclusion when there has been no mention of public relations (PR) in any other section of this dossier?  As well, if strategic scientific PR work was that effective, then nuclear power might not be quite so controversial.

Overall, this study doesn’t break any new ground but does confirm a growing consensus of opinion, the public regardless of which country (with the possible exception of France) we are discussing tends not to be all that interested in nanotechnology.

For those curious about the French controversies, there’s a mention in my March 10, 2010 posting (scroll down about 1/4 of the way) about an Agence Science-Presse radio interview with Celine Lafontaine, a Quebec-based academic who studies the social impact of nanotechnology and was in France during a very contentious series of public debates on the subject.

For anyone who found the reference to ‘actors’ in this research a little unexpected, the term is being used by researchers who are using ‘actor-network theory’ as an analytical tool. You can find out more about actor-network theory in this Wikipedia essay.

A couple of starter articles on nanotechnology and its good/bad possibilities

1 Reply

It’s been a long time since I’ve featured  any explanations of nanotechnology. Julie Deardorff in her July 10, 2012 article for the Chicago Tribune offers an excellent introduction to nanotechnology and the benefits and risks associated with it,

Improved sunscreens are just one of the many innovative uses of nanotechnology, which involves drastically shrinking and fundamentally changing the structure of chemical compounds. But products made with nanomaterials also raise largely unanswered safety questions — such as whether the particles that make them effective can be absorbed into the bloodstream and are toxic to living cells.

Less than two decades old, the nanotech industry is booming. Nanoparticles — measured in billionths of a meter — are already found in thousands of consumer products, including cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, anti-microbial infant toys, sports equipment, food packaging and electronics. In addition to producing transparent sunscreens, nanomaterials help make light and sturdy tennis rackets, clothes that don’t stain and stink-free socks.

The particles can alter how products look or function because matter behaves differently at the nanoscale, taking on unique and mysterious chemical and physical properties. Materials made of nanoparticles may be more conductive, stronger or more chemically reactive than those containing larger particles of the same compound.

If you would like more information and another perspective (Deardorff’s article is US-focussed), you can read the July 11, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight article submitted by NanoTrust, Austrian Academy of Sciences (Note: I have removed footnotes),

Nanotechnology is often referred to as being a “key technology” of the 21st century, and the expectations for innovative products and new market potentials are high. The prediction is that novel products with new or improved functionality, or revolutionary developments in the field of medicine, will improve our lives in the future. Importantly, these technical innovations have also raised great hopes in the environmental sector.

…

Rising prices for raw materials and energy, coupled with the increasing environmental awareness of consumers, are responsible for a flood of products on the market that promise certain advantages for environmental and climate protection. Nanomaterials exhibit special physical and chemical properties that make them interesting for novel, environmentally friendly products.
…

Emphasis is often placed on the sustainable potential of nanotechnology. Nonetheless, this usually reflects unsubstantiated expectations7. Determining the actual effects of a product on the environment – both positive and negative – requires examining the entire life cycle from production of the raw material to disposal at the end of the life cycle. As a rule, the descriptions of environmental benefits fail to consider the amount of resources and energy consumed in producing the products.

While it’s not as friendly as Deardorff’s, this is a good companion piece as it offers a broader range of  nanotechnology topics and issues and a healthy selection of resources. In addition, Nanotrust has a number of dossiers available for more nanotechnology reading.