Over the last two years I was involved in a broad dialogue on the effect of the introduction of nanotechnology in society. The dialogue (organized by an independent Committee: www.nanopodium.nl) succeeded in providing a lot of good information to the Dutch citizens: what is nanotechnology, how does it work, what are possibilities and risks of its use? Conclusion: let's move forward in a responsible manner.
Again in this discussin it became clear to me how easily such a dialogue is overwhelmed by the risks and fears of a new technology. In 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio the precautionary principle was formulated: "lack of full scientific evidence shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation". Since then, the principle has been used as a strong argument for an allmost brake on technological innovation. The "better safe than sorry" maxim rules: no innovation can be used unless scientifically proven to be completely harmless. I have seen that happening under my eyes during my earlier involvement in the debates on genetic modification.
The point is however that we can only learn the full possibilities and risks of an innovation by its use on a wider scale. When the first cars were used people were afraid of explosions of the motor and the harm that would do to the drivers. Nobody thought of wide scale traffic jams. A strictly used precautionary principle makes it impossible to learn what we can do or shoudn't by using a new technology. You cannot discern that in a laboratory or by scientific research alone.
Is there an alternative? Can we as a modern pluralistic society make collective choice on technology and innnovation? Can we as a global society choose some innovations over others? Surprisingly enough Kevin Kelly shows in his book What Technology Wants that the Amish (not a people know for its progressiveness) have found a way to judge technology for its congruence with their values by taking time to test them and research them for their contribution to their way of life.
It leads Kelly to the plea for another principle that replaces the precautionary one: the Proactionary Principle. That is a conscious and continuous engagement with innovation and technology with the aid of five "proactions": anticipation; continual assessment; prioritization of risks, including natural ones; rapid correction of harm; not prohibition but redirection.This gives us a broader and much more self-assuredprinciple for the steering of the inevitable progress of technology. We will have to embrace technology within our human domain. And we will have to "learn" them (i.e. the innovations) what we want from them.
It also gives perspective on what Kelly calls, following the great educatar and social activist Ivan Illich, "convivial tools": tools that "enlarge the contribution (to a good and just society, WK) of autonomous individuals and primary groups." Kelly: "I am convinced that conviviality resides (…) in the job assignment, in the context, in the expression we construct for the technology".
And that is a good start for the future of nanotechnology in society. We, as a society, will make the future of nanotechnology ourselves. Without a brake but proactive!
