Within nanoseconds of its publication, Greenpeace had been dismissed as "industrial terrorists", while another commentator even took a swipe at the widely read and respected science publication New Scientist (in the mistaken belief that the magazine was publishing the report), calling it sensationalist. Whatever next, calling Nature a British tabloid? These are pretty strong reactions for a report which says that no definite conclusions about the dangers can be made now, a moratorium does not make sense, much of nanotech may be environmentally benign, much may be beneficial but more research should be done, and industry should take the concerns seriously or face an irrational backlash.
In fact the report, by Alexander Huw Arnall of Imperial College London, UK, makes interesting reading. It is a factual, well-informed, intelligent and unbiased assessment of the current state of nanotechnology, which flags some of the potential issues yet avoids any partisan judgmentalism. Far from dismissing nanotechnology, the introduction by Doug Parr, Greenpeace chief scientist, explains that: "new technologies...are also an integral part of our solutions to environmental problems, including renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind and wave power, and waste treatment technologies such as mechanical-biological treatment."
The knee-jerk reactions, which seem to emanate entirely from the US, represent exactly the sort of dismissive and confrontational attitude that will only increase public suspicion and encourage the kind of damaging blanket rejection that has been seen with genetically modified organisms. Contrast this hostility with the fact that the report mentions, in passing, that the pesticide DDT offers benefits that have been lost because of a backlash engendered by an unwillingness to be open and frank with the public. Hardly the position of environmental extremists and a salutary observation for those who seem bent on a confrontation with Greenpeace, which the likes of Shell will tell you should not be entered into lightly.
Having spent much of the last year looking at the environmental and quality of life benefits of nanotechnology, I have spoken to a large number of people in environmental movements who are genuinely excited by the possibilities that nanotechnology may offer for reducing energy consumption, improving health care and moving towards a more sustainable and environmentally less damaging future. Greenpeace are no exception. While the environmental movement attracts its fair share of luddites and crackpots, nanotechnology is not without its share of radical futurists. It is good to see the beginnings of a closer co-operation between groups concerned with exploiting nanotechnology and those keeping an eye on the potential pitfalls.
The importance of this report should not be underestimated. The last six months have seen a worrying trend towards demonizing nanotech indiscriminately. There would certainly seem to be people out there with an agenda, little desire for rational discussion, and yet a track record of successfully blocking the commercialization of technologies and whipping up public fear. Having one of the world's most prominent environmental organizations weigh in on the side of rationality has lowered this risk enormously. We should all breathe a sigh of relief and, now duly warned, get down to tackling those few areas where real issues may indeed exist. If we don't, we could still face a backlash.
Rather than repeating warnings about industry's handling of new technologies, I'll urge you to read the report before leaping to any conclusions, and leave the last word to Greenpeace.
"If those concerned with the development of new technologies, and nanotechnology in particular, are convinced that the benefits they hope to generate will withstand scrutiny, they should have no concerns about engaging and winning public support."