Industry must create high-profile nanotechnology champions

A new report on nanotechnology highlights the roles of the media and the engineering community in communication of emerging technologies, says Dr Helen Meese.

“Despite its 40 years in the public domain, the nanotechnology industry is still failing to engage with society in an open and clear way, and governments continue to lack impetus in committing to international regulation.” Helen Meese

I am pleased and excited by the media response to the Institution's report Nanotechnology: the societal impact of the invisible, which was published this week.

The story about the kidney failure test using nanotechnology has proved an irresistible attraction to the media, who are keen to promote exciting technological developments, the benefits of which are clear to see. It is a fine example of the role that the media can play in presenting science and engineering breakthroughs to the public, but engineers must also play their part in this process.

However, the report does highlight the fact that all new technologies come with benefits and risks, and nanotechnology is no exception. The report propose actions that would assess and minimise risks, without stifling the industry in its infancy.

Firstly, industry should create 'champions' whose aim is to pull the research through to commercial products. These high-profile nanotechnology advocates would act as a catalyst to bring together research and commerce. Cross-fertilisation of ideas and experience would help the nanotechnology industry and ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of technology development.

Secondly, government has a key role in enabling the market, it must provide the legislative framework for regulation and safety assurance. This will involve greater levels of funding in the short term, and an emphasis on co-operation to ensure there are common standards between countries.

And finally, but by no means the easiest, engineers have a duty to present facts and information to the public to demystify the technology at the earliest stage of development. This means that each and every one of us will ultimately be able to make an informed decision on whether we would like to adopt the technology.

Nanotechnology has the potential to impact many industry sectors, produce new products and save money, so sharing experiences and knowledge will be key. But the profession must learn from the debates about GM crops, asbestos and stem cell research, that public opinion is a powerful force. Building trust with an open and honest flow of information will ultimately lead to balanced decision making and a healthy industry. Active engagement and debate is not where many engineers feel comfortable, but it is essential.

The example of the kidney test brings a little known (and possibly slightly scary) technology to the public in the form of a practical example with a clear benefit. This a positive step along the path of open communication, which I hope is the first of many.
 
Watch video interviews with the report's authors.


Dr Helen Meese CEng MIMechE is the Institution's Head of Engineering in Society. She works to raise the profile of mechanical engineering, focusing on innovative and emerging technologies and how they impact on society, both in the UK and internationally. 

Follow or contact Helen on Twitter @HMeese_IMechE.