National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan (December, 2004): at 1. The National Nanotechnology Initiative was introduced by the Clinton Administration to Congress in a February 2000 report entitled National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution, which was prepared by the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Technology. The report supplemented the administration's request to double nanoscience and nanotechnology research and development funding for FY 2001. The Bush Administration has continued to promote nanotechnology as the basis for the next industrial revolution. The supplemental document to its FY 2006 Budget Request, submitted to congress in March 2005 by the Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Technology, is entitled The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry.
2.
ScheufeleD. A. and LewensteinB., “The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies,”Journal of Nanoparticle Research7, no. 6 (2005): 659–667.
3.
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Public Law 108–153 (108th Congress, 2003).
4.
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act § 2(b)(10)(D) (2003).
5.
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan (July 2000) and Strategic Plan (December, 2004).
6.
UldrichJ. and NewberryD., The Next Big Thing Is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business (New York: Crown Publishing, 2003): at 17.
7.
See, for example, the testimony of ColvinV. L., Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, hearings before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, 108th Congress, 1st session (2003); and ServiceR. F., “Nanotech Forum Aims to Head Off Replay of Past Blunders,”Science306 (2004): 955.
8.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (May 2005).
9.
National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution (February 2000): at 68.
10.
These and other differences between GMOs and nanotechnology are discussed in SandlerR. and KayW. D., “The GMO-Nanotech (Dis)Analogy?”Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society26, no. 1 (2006): 57–62.
11.
For further information on these objections see RuseM. and CastleD., eds., Genetically Modified Foods: Debating Biotechnology (Prometheus Books, 2002); or BaileyB. and LappeM., eds., Engineering the Farm: Ethical and Social Aspects of Agricultural Biotechnology (Island Press, 2002).
12.
CobbM. D. and MacoubrieJ., “Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust,”Journal of Nanoparticle Research6, no. 4 (2004): 395–405; and Scheufele and Lewenstein (2005), supra note 2.
13.
SanchezE. M. calls this role “expert as facilitator” in “The Expert's Role in Nanoscience and Technology,” in BairdD.NordmannA., and SchummerJ., eds., Discovering the Nanoscale (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2004): 257–66.
14.
Concerns are sometimes expressed about the usefulness of including the public in decision-making of this sort given that most of the general public, including many of those who would participate, have only a superficial understanding of the science and technology at issue. However, one need not be an expert in nanoscience or nanotechnology to make informed judgments about the values or goods at stake with nanotechnology. The public might set certain goals or constraints, even while it is left to the experts in science and industry to achieve those goals (given those constraints) in a technologically feasible and economically viable way.
15.
“We believe that there is a danger of derailing NT if serious study of NT's ethical, environmental, economic, legal, and social implications…does not reach the speed of progress in the sciences…The only way to avoid such a moratorium [on nanotechnology] is to immediately close the gap between the science and ethics of NT. The lessons of genomics and biotechnology make this feasible. Either the ethics of NT will catch up, or the science will slow down.” From MnyusiwallaA.DaarA. S., and SingerP. A., “‘Mind the Gap’: Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology,”Nanotechnology14 (2003): R9–R13, at R9, R12.
The purpose defined for these centers is to “formulate a long-term vision for addressing societal, ethical, environmental, and education concerns; involve partners or affiliates to collaborate on topics related to responsible development of nanotechnology; include plans to involve a wide range of stakeholders; and develop a clearinghouse for information on communicating about nanoscience and nanotechnology and engaging the public in meaningful dialogue,” Strategic Plan, supra note 1, at 13.
An ambitious effort recently initiated to expand public awareness, understanding, and dialogue regarding nanotechnology is the Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE) Network. The NISE Network is a nationwide partnership of science museums led by the Museum of Science, Boston, the Science Museum of Minnesota, and the Exploratorium in San Francisco. It is supported by a five-year twenty million dollar award from the National Science Foundation as part of the NNI.
23.
Among federal agencies, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has been perhaps the most proactive in this respect. Information on the agency's efforts can be found at NIOSH, “Safety and Health Topic: Nanotech,”at <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/> (last visited August 7, 2006).
