To the Editor — New technologies are often met with apprehension and criticism. It is therefore essential that all sides of the nanotechnology debate be aired, as is pointed out in the promising introduction to the article “What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology” by Currall and co-workers1. However, the article by Currall et al. also embodies an unquestioned assumption that the technology should advance. They believe that research will progress unhindered as long as we “educate the public aggressively with facts about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology”. We believe this position reflects a failure to learn from the experiences of other innovative technologies, and that, ultimately, it may provoke public resistance to safe and beneficial developments in nanotechnology.

It is well established that all people, including experts, imbue risk analyses with personal values2,3,4. Scientists involved in the communication of new technologies often steer the debate in a purely technical direction, alienating an already sceptical audience5. This propensity carries an assumption that scientists can obtain 'objective facts' about risks and benefits that are yet to unfold. Scientists directly involved in new advances are sometimes slow to understand and acknowledge public concerns.

Educating the public will not necessarily solve the problem of public acceptance. Flaws with this 'cognitive deficit' model of public understanding and acceptance of science have been exposed in high-profile cases, such as the GM food and nuclear energy debates6. The model ignores the inherent uncertainty and subjectivity of risk assessments, and takes a narrow view of what is at stake. Risk analyses often ignore social and economic issues. As a result, the public may perceive risks as unethical or unacceptable, generating unexpected, broad-based resistance to innovation. Public trust in the nano-industry may be further eroded by findings of recent research7 that suggests “a substantial number of [industry] companies have no structured approach for assessing the risks associated with nanoparticulate material”.

The motives of governments and businesses who invest in new technology are not always compatible with those of broad sectors of the public. For example, companies and universities are patenting new technological innovations early and often, and nanotechnology is no exception8. The capture of intellectual property in this fashion may have important, unacknowledged social and economic consequences. Innovations such as a carbon nanofibre replacement for cotton may survive an environmental risk assessment, but may damage cotton-growing communities in developing economies. Moreover, breakthroughs in nanotechnology are owned by a small handful of companies, largely or exclusively based in developed economies.

Many researchers, including Currall et al., and many policy makers are concerned that a lack of public acceptance will hinder developments in nanotechnology. Yet advances in nanotechnology already proceed ahead of the policy and regulatory environment9. Therefore, it is probable that for a broader society to be comfortable with innovations in nanotechnology, progress may be slower than scientists would like. Scientists may be delayed by social deliberation.

Scientific research can be insensitive to the concerns of the community. Scientific culture is structured to give rewards to those who achieve breakthroughs first. In this race, the risks are evaluated most often by people who have a stake in the outcome. These same people are unlikely to represent fairly the philosophies, opinions and values of all those who bear the burden of the risks of innovation. Furthermore, the level of risk that we are prepared to tolerate varies dramatically from person to person. Nanotechnology promises products and solutions so advanced that they seem like science fiction, and people are understandably hesitant to dive headfirst into a world where they relinquish control over unforeseen consequences, irrespective of the benefits. Although nanotechnology will undoubtedly yield remarkable benefits, social concerns will not simply dissolve by aggressively educating the public about the science. The discipline should embrace a broader view of public involvement in research, particularly in the evaluation of its risks and benefits.