ARLINGTON, VA—Scientists, engineers, and government officials must confront head-on the ethical and societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology in order to keep the field from falling victim to the obstacles that have hampered progress in biotechnology and stem cell research, experts said last week at a workshop on nanoscience and society. But some of the protections are already in place, other participants said.

The workshop, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, held December 3–5 at the National Science Foundation (NSF), brought together some 150 scientists, engineers, government officials, and industry representatives to discuss the implications of nanotechnology on such areas as health and economics, privacy, national security, and quality of life. The NSF held a similar conference in 2000.

Protocols already in existence, such as the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee for genetic engineering, will also suffice for nanoscience, John Marburger, presidential science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy said in remarks read by an official at the conference.

“I am not saying we have answered all ethical questions that are raised by such possibilities as sensory enhancement and protracted longevity,” wrote Marburger, “but the idea that there are procedures already in place to deal with these new applications ought to be reassuring.”

The public's fear of and fascination with nanotechnology is largely exaggerated, said George M. Whitesides, professor of chemistry at Harvard University. “There is a lot of hyperbole and anxiety” over nanotechnology, he said, accompanied by an overperception of risk, such as the specter of self-replicating nanobots gone amok. “The 'grey goo' and apocalyptic views are largely irrational,” he said.

But legitimate social issues do exist, Whitesides noted. These include privacy concerns, health risks from nanoparticles in the environment, and alienation from technology by those who distrust it. “There's a real obligation on the part of the scientific community to deal with the public confusion.”

NSF Director Rita R. Colwell told the conference that researchers and engineers must maintain a dialogue with social scientists as well as with the public. “We can't risk making the mistakes that were made with the introduction of biotechnology. It's much too important,” she said. “Future generations may well judge our success, and our wisdom, by how well we realize the potential of nanoscience and engineering while avoiding the pitfalls.”

Nanoscience and nanotechnology refer to research at the scale of 100 nanometers or less. Applications range across material science, information technologies, environmental benefits, and medicine. But for every expected benefit, there exists a corresponding potential “unexpected consequence” having societal implications, said Mihail C. Roco, chairman of the National Science and Technology Council's subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology.

Appropriately enough, on the first day of the conference, President Bush signed into law the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (S 189), a bill that institutionalizes federal nanotechnology research and development and authorizes nearly $3.7 billion in spending over 4 years beginning October 1, 2004.

Much of the discussion revolved around the possibility of “unintended consequences” of nanoscience. Roger Kasperson, a risk specialist and director of the Stockholm Environment Institute and a research geography professor at Clark University, noted that nanotechnology has a “high potential for major risk surprises as well as benefits.”

“Our knowledge of the risks will change over time as the technology develops,” Kasperson said. But society will amplify the perception of risks to the extent the public mistrusts scientists and government officials and has doubts over who controls benefits and dangers. Kasperson recommended discussions of nanotechnology issues involve the public with an “open and transparent decision making with management, error, and uncertainty acknowledgement.”