From GMOs to Nanotechnology and beyond learning from the past, looking to the future

1
From GMOs to Nanotechnology and beyond learning
from the past, looking to the future Andrew
Moore, Science Society Programme Manager,
European Molecular Biology Organization
2
The crux of the matter
GMO debate
Society wants, needs and appreciates marvelous
things, but is it prepared to accept the way in
which they are made, and their possible risks?
Nanotechnology
Picture sources Fruit and veg. basket EMBO
reports, 5, 5, (2004) immune cell
Kompetenzzentrum für Nanolanalytik, Munich,
Germany biomolecular motor Cornell University,
USA
3
Part 1 the Tomato - or public knowledge and
opinion about the technology
4
GM - public knowledge and opinion

• Are there genes in tomatoes? Is (certain) DNA
  toxic? (popular terminology didnt help)
• GM Perceived as an unregulated technological
  revolution.
• Natural (good) versus unnatural (bad)
• Perceived risks outweighed marginal benefit.
• EU-15 86 only if scientifically proven
  harmless
• New states 79 only if scientifically proven
  harmless
• EU-15 71 dont want GM food
• New states 68 dont want GM food
• UK particularly strongly affected (media and
  NGOs)

5
Nanotech - public knowledge and opinion (UK)

• 29 aware of term (68 positive), but
• 34 of aware had no definition
• 46 of aware define it as making things
  small/small technology (generally very little
  knowledge, 1 defines nano)
• Perceived as technical evolution
• Some benefits already taken for granted
• In general, people more positive about
  nanotechnology, and more in touch with its
  applications, but large awareness and knowledge
  gaps

6
Part 2 the culturing of public opinion - or the
effect of NGOs and the media
7
GM - the effect of NGOs and the media

• Consumer groups, environmental and activist
  organisations were very successful in guiding
  public opinion against GM - very polarised
  stances.
• Media had a bonanza of saleable material, mainly
  based on generating fear of the new technology.
• Eventually absolute confusion and lack of
  distinctions

8
Headlines around the time of the Great GM Debate
Daily Mail, 20.05.1999
9
News of the World, 20.05.1999
10
The Guardian, 24.05.1999
11
The Observer, 20.06.1999
12
The Independent on Sunday 18.06.1999
13
(No Transcript)
14
Frankenstein tomato?
www.veggies.co.uk
15
GM reduced to a joke-like catch-phrase
16
Nanotech - the effect of NGOs and the media

• ETC (for global regulation, governance, fair
  use)
• Moratorium called for in 2002
• Main concerns are nanoparticles and nanotubes
• Anger at use of anti-erosion nanotech product
• Nanobiotechnology, green goo,
  nanobiotechnology comes alive, coming to life
  sciences
• Greenpeace (sees benefits as well as problems)
• Scaremongering on the Internet about the
  evil-ness of nanotechnology novels of doom
  scenarios
• Headlines mixed, depending on subject

17
Headlines on nanotechnology
The Scotsman 27.04.2003
18
The Telegraph 05.06.2003
19
The Independent 15.06.2004
20
THIS astonishingly beautiful flower is less
than one THOUSANDTH the width of a human hair
Flower 1,000th of a hair
The Sun 24.06.2004
21
Part 3 Industry - or who sells what to whom, and
how
22
GM - who sold what to whom, and how

• All about the very food we eat every day
• Large multinational, Monsanto
• RoundUp ready Soya imports to Europe, 1996
• Massive, targeted advertising campaign
• Approach educational rather than consultational
• Immediate outrage from NGOs and consumers
• More battles followed (Syngenta/Greenpeace)

23
Nanotech - whos selling what to whom, and how

• We dont (yet) ingest nanotechnology products.
• Many small companies, not selling much yet
• Very large diversity of technologies
• Companies very sensitive to damage that could be
  done by negative public perception
• Many applications still some way off, so time to
  develop good PR and consultation strategies
• Existing applications mainly improvements hidden
  away in an existing device
• Some problems with the definition and use of the
  term nanotechnology

24
RS / RAE definitions
"Nanoscience is the study of phenomena and
manipulation of materials at atomic, molecular
and macromolecular scales, where properties
differ significantly from those at a larger
scale." "Nanotechnology is the design,
characterisation, production and application of
structures, devices and systems by controlling
shape and size at nanometre scale."
25
Sequoia Pacific Research Company and SoilSETTM

• SoilSET is a chemically engineered liquid
  organic binder
• Why is SoilSET a nanotechnology? The SoilSET
  mixture is configured through reactions at the
  nano measurement level.
• SoilSET contains no manufactured
  nano-particles
• Definition of nanotechnology The application
  of science to developing new materials and
  processes by manipulating molecular and atomic
  particles

26
Part 4 Investigations and regulations - or is
it safe?
27
GM - is it safe?

• No evidence of adverse effects on consumers
• Extensive farm scale evaluations (2003)
• Report from ACRE (2004)
• Review of science behind GM (2004)
• Several reports on scientific, social and
  ethical issues
• Nuffield Council paper on use of GM in dev.
  World
• BMA states No robust evidence to prove that GM
  foods are unsafe. (2004)
• New EU regulations on labelling and traceability
• None of the above had any noticeable effect.

28
Nanotech - is it safe?

• RS evidence on environmental applications and
  impacts (2003)
• RS / RAE study (July 2004)
• Many nanotechnologies pose no new risks to
  health
• A substance needs new safety testing once in
  nanoparticulate form
• Life cycle assessments needed
• No case for a moratorium
• EU funded project Nanosafe (FP6) in progress
• How will the precautionary principle be applied
  if and when needed?

29
Part 5 Europe and the rest of the world - or our
involvement in the bigger picture
30
GM - our involvement in the bigger picture

• Europe is out of the picture.
• Romania only significant producer (0.05 million
  hectares) USA 42.8 million (Clive James, 2003)
• Green biotech has virtually disappeared
  (Syngenta moves GM research out of Europe, July
  2004)
• Funding for GM crop research down
• Some of our best young scientists leaving
• The precautionary principle applied too much led
  to stagnation and regression.
• If you dont play the game, you cant make the
  rules.
• Such polarity is disadvantageous to everyone in
  Europe, and many outside.

31
Nanotech - our involvement in the bigger picture

• Europe is up there with the others (USA 1.6B,
  Asia 1.6B, Europe 1.3B) (luxresearch 2004).
• World-leading centres (Cambridge, Oxford,
  Munich)
• EC dedicated to continued substantial support,
  realising that Europe needs to compete globally.

32
Part 6 Scientists - outreach or out of reach?
33
GM - scientists outreach or out of reach?

• A few shining exceptions, but generally
• Unaware of public concerns
• Media unfriendly / un-savvy
• Unprepared for emotional arguments
• Unused to listening (rather than giving
  information)
• Unable to compete with other opinion makers
• Un-co-ordinated and unsupportive of each other
• Reactive instead of proactive
• Swiss referendum forced them onto streets to
  save their research

34
Nanotech - scientists outreach or out of reach?

• Scientists more aware of social context of
  research
• Scientists improving communication skills (media
  / communication workshops)
• Many realise need for interdisciplinary
  discussion with academics trained in the
  humanities.
• More professional PR from research institutes

35
Conclusions and short term outlook for
nanotechnology
36

• Nanotechnology has generally not yet reached the
  state of application that elicit intense public
  interest.
• Nanotechnology is a big investment there is a
  lot at stake.
• Public fears exist concerning self replicating
  systems regulators concerned about particles
  etc.
• Nanobiotechnology can easily fall into the
  pre-made trap of GM.
• Nanobiotechnology will likely give us the first
  nano-biologically active entities for use in the
  human body.
• Bio-nanomachines have already been made by
  nature, and their adaptation for use by or in
  humans is on the horizon.

37

• Possible problems with public perception of
  nanobiotechnology could easily spread to whole
  field (interdisciplinarity).
• A very large part of the science of the future
  will likely depend on nano-technological
  approaches.
• Perhaps scientists and industry should
  concentrate on talking in terms of applications
  rather than nano-x or y.
• If somethingunconsented outrages or a report
  scares, the GM saga could be repeated with
  nanotechnology (human or environmental risk).
• Many unknowns, prospects that seem fantastic
  today

38
Looking to the future - lessons learnt, and how
to apply them
39

• Public outrage is a very powerful component of
  risk perception - scientists (and industry) heed!
• Outrage at one sector of a field can spread like
  wildfire gt indiscriminate demonisation.
• Once public perception badly damaged, no number
  of studies can get discussions back onto a
  balanced track.
• Unilateral moratoria not as good as remaining in
  the game, however slowly you move.
• Misconceptions about lack of regulation of RD
  must not be allowed to develop - scientists
  communicate! Science is not out of control.

40

• Scientists should be more proactive rather than
  reactive co-ordinate and support each other
  master the art of rapid media communication
  master the art of risk communication.
• Early risk identification and analysis
• Consultation by industry not post hoc
  convincing
• Absolute clarity, accuracy and transparency
  resisting temptation to use nano trivially as a
  marketing aid.
• Public fears or possible areas of anxiety must
  be discussed, however irrational they may seem,
  or however far from emergence the technology in
  question is.
• Introduction of latest science and debate in
  classroom.

41
And what became of the GM tomato?
42
(No Transcript)