Wynne: Scientists’s denial, not public ignorance of nano, causes mistrust
One speaker at this year's EuroNanoForum took a rather controversial stand:
" While ignorance is seen by many as the reason for public concern, Bryan Wynne from Lancaster University in the UK rejected this argument: 'Public ignorance is not the cause of mistrust and scepticism, this has been proved by Eurobarometer surveys. The cause is what as seen as a denial by scientists of scientific ignorance.' The novel nature of nanotechnology means that there are many knowledge gaps, and the 'well-meaning but mistaken behaviour of institutions involved in nanotechnology' leads to doubts, elaborated Professor Wynne."
We in the U.S. are certainly seeing some mistaken institutional behavior, reflecting an underestimation of the public's ability to address nanotech issues reasonably. Americans do not reject every technology featured in a Michael Crichton horror novel/film.–CP
December 27th, 2003 at 7:14 AM
Trust stems from professionalism and integrity
Trust is an interesting issue in our context, with several of the speakers touching on it to varying degrees:
Trust can also be lost when the results of risk evaluation assessments are not consistent. This is a danger, as different countries and sections of society evaluate risk differently. When conclusions vary, the 'illusion of objective risk assessment is lost,' said Professor Hermeren.
Yes, it's undoubted that perspectives and priorities vary across the world, and with that, so will the value judgements that underpin risk assessment and development policy. Tensions at that level are made worse though when the leading nations are so strongly focussed on encumbering new technologies to the benefit of their own industrial complexes. This isn't a recipe for increasing international trust in a future of global prosperity. It seems more likely to be leading us towards a global civil war in which the west seek to deny the future to the rest of the world.
At its heart, trust in nations stems from trust in people. Sadly, the very high lack of trust between nations is little more than a reflection of the world's utter distrust in 99% of its politicians and governments. Very few professions suffer from such extremity in the way that their practitioners are viewed: witness the almost total esteem towards doctors worldwide, and the general respect for professionals of all kinds when in their areas of competence.
The distrust in politicians is not an unavoidable consequence of their focus being mostly national, because it is possible to avoid being anti-international if the will is there. However, most politicians are not independents who have nothing to lose by being the voice of planetary vision and peaceful coexistence, and party politics rapidly drags down the few global idealists entering the system into the nationalistic mire inhabited by the rest.
It's bad enough when the only inimical effect is national myopia, but alas it's much worse than that now, with the loss of even a token separation between state and big business. It's no longer a simple case of not trusting politicians to do the right thing for mankind, we can now trust them fully to do the wrong thing even for the common citizenry of their own country. When a megacorp can push through legislation to safeguard its business interests against future progress almost subliminally on the back of another bill without causing even a raised eyebrow, you know that a once-honorable system has become infested with vermin. In such a context, even discussing the concept of trust becomes laughable.
Trust in professionals still remains untarnished however, and it is international in scope. Try this little thought experiment: imagine an American doctor held captive by anti-American troops beyond the reach of their own doctors. Would they trust the "enemy" doctor to operate on their dying colleague? There is little doubt that in most cases, trust in the doctor to do the right thing would be almost total, not just because of professional competence and professional integrity, but also because it is recognized that for many professionals, politics is a secondary issue to professionalism and the simple desire to do good.
In the area of MNT, we are doing ourselves no favors by seeking endorsement or even interest from the political sphere. For a professional, handing over responsibility to an inherently untrustworthy sector is an inherently irresponsible action. We have in our ranks large numbers of professional scientists and engineers, several well informed technical, societal and even philosophical think tanks, as well as medical analysts, economists, industrialists and venture capitalists, as well as generalists and assorted visionaries. This is an informational and advisary resource that cannot be bettered by government, only diluted or hijacked. It should be talking to the world direct, not through the filter of a national administration with compromised integrity and a strong bias against global progress.
December 27th, 2003 at 11:45 AM
Distrust works both ways
I must admit that I now distrust a large number of scientists and advisors because of nanotechnology. After reading Drexler's technical works and reviewing then-new information on molecular motors, it became obvious that nanotechnology would work. But lots of people who should have known better said it couldn't. Some still do. These people I distrust mightily.
Vik :v)
December 27th, 2003 at 2:36 PM
Trust in MNT is not required
It's important not to confuse trust in people (the issue that I raised) with trust that technology works. The latter is irrelevant, in the sense that trust does not form part of the scientific method. Science requires that the real world prove to us what is possible and what is not, and any beliefs in theories are merely provisional and subject to disproval.
I don't "trust" in MNT, despite working towards making it happen. Various parts of the subject area fall under my engineering training and background and have many of the same theoretical and practical underpinnings as the semiconductors and teflon coatings and sequenced genes in the engineered world around me, which the scientific method has shown not to be fiction. Other parts have quite an extensive theoretical background well laid out for scientific criticism, but are merely provisional until disproved by reasoning or confirmed by observation. My trust in them isn't required.
In contrast, when it comes to the actions of people, the scientific method isn't too helpful except maybe statistically, so we use trust instead. Being inexact and based on precedent, trust is a weak tool, but it's all we have. It seems to work sometimes for some groups but not often for others, so people learn to trust in doctors but not in politicians. So be it, we take the world as we find it. But trust in scientists is not required, and an adviser with scientific background is not a scientist but merely an advocate. Always know the difference.