The case of nanobiotechnology.

Abstract

Scientific progress and technical innovations are necessary not only to raise, or at least to secure, our present level of prosperity and to ensure competitiveness in the global market, but also to progress further in medicine and sustainable development. On these points there is, to a great extent, consensus. Scientific and technical progress, however, do not produce only positive outcomes. New technologies have unintended side effects, such as hazards to the natural environment, to human health or to society at large. The ozone hole, the long unrecognized carcinogenic effects of asbestos and catastrophic accidents, such as Bhopal or Chernobyl, are well‐known examples (Harremoes et al , 2002). This ambivalence of science and technology is largely acknowledged today, and has led to risk research, technology assessment and ethical reflection to anticipate, counter and minimize the negative effects (Grunwald, 2002). > …technology optimists are also a hindrance to scientific and technological progress, and its implementation… But there are still considerable differences in the public acceptance of research and new technologies and their potential risks: “The core problem…is the ongoing conflict between those who embrace the changes that come with new vistas of research and those who loathe and dread them” (Gannon, 2003). Basically, the public debate about new technologies is characterized by these two extreme positions. On one side are the technology sceptics, who exclusively look at the risks, expect mainly negative effects from technological progress and demand ‘zero risk’ for all new technologies. On the opposite side are the technology optimists, who—in conformity with the once prevalent optimistic belief in progress—expect mainly positive effects from technology and demand that ‘residual risk’ must be accepted. I find both extremes exaggerated and one‐sided, and I believe that both standpoints are, in the long run, detrimental to scientific and technological progress and their acceptance in …