Technology Analysis & Strategic Management
, 2013
Vol. 25, No. 5, 507–526, http:
//
dx.doi.org
/
10.1080
/
09537325.2013.785510
Four scenarios for nanotechnologies in theUK, 2011–2020
Christopher Groves
∗
ESRC Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability Sustainability and Society, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
The future social value of nanoscale science and technology (NST) has been repeatedly repre-sented as revolutionary. However, government and industry support for the commercialisationof NST has to confront four key areas of uncertainty: concerning potential hazards associatedwith applications, commercial viability, public acceptance and evolving regulation.Academicand policy responses have to date largely emphasised the need for adaptive and anticipatoryregulation, yet research which evaluates the prospects of success in implementing such mea-sures has so far been lacking. This paper contributes to remedying this lack by examiningdifficulties and opportunities which may arise around this regulatory agenda in the UK, withthe aid of a ‘policy Delphi’exercise undertaken with a multi-stakeholder panel. It summarisesfour scenarios to aid policy-makers and technology strategists in the UK and internationally inthinking through how the future of NST innovation may be affected by factors associated withthe aforementioned areas of uncertainty.
Keywords:
adaptive regulation; anticipatory regulation; Delphi; future scenarios;nanotechnology
Introduction
Scientificandregulatoryuncertaintiesareinherenttotechnologicalinnovation,theresultofinfor-mation deficits which, by definition, tend to accompany novel technologies (Collingridge 1980).Nanoscale science and technology (NST), some have argued, may usher in revolutionary techno-logical and social changes in decades to come. Current interest in NST on the part of industry andgovernmentshasbeenstimulatedbytheseoptimisticvisions.Theneedtosupportthedevelopmentof industrial uses of NST with adequate regulation has been repeatedly underlined throughout thelastdecade(e.g.RS
/
RAEng2004).However,theinformationdeficitproblem,manyhaveargued,is particularly acute in the case of NST thanks to the wide range of applications in which its prod-ucts may be applied and the difficulties involved in life-cycle monitoring of nano-engineeredmaterials (Lösch, Gammel, and Nordmann 2009). Consequently, the value of adaptive and
/
oranticipatory regulation, sensitive both to the need to resolve scientific uncertainties and to theneed to avoid hasty top-down over-regulation, has been emphasised in the literature on gover-nance (e.g. Lee and Jose 2008). There has to date been little systematic examination, however,
∗
Email: grovesc1@cf.ac.uk
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ C a r d i f f U n i v e r s i t y ] , [ C h r i s t o p h e r G r o v e s ] a t 0 6 : 1 6 3 0 A p r i l 2 0 1 3
508
C. Groves
of the prospects for implementing adaptive and
/
or anticipatory regulation in the industry, and of potentialchallengestoitsimplementation.Byemployinga‘policyDelphi’approach,theresearchreported in this paper contributes to remedying this deficiency. Using outputs from two roundsof multi-stakeholder consultation, four scenarios were constructed which explore the potentialimpacts of a variety of possible forms of adaptive and anticipatory regulation on the next decadeof nanotechnology development in the UK. These scenarios provide a tool for comparing andcontrasting differing strategic policy options for the adaptive regulation of NST which, whilehaving the UK industry as its primary focus, has international application.
The commercial environment
Promissory discourses regarding NST have mapped out certain key areas in which radical futuredevelopments are expected (Berube 2006), which have led to debates about the potential widerethical and social consequences of these ‘disruptive’ possibilities, and also about how best toregulate NST with these possibilities in mind (Renn and Roco 2006). More recently, however,this ‘speculative’ approach to addressing regulatory uncertainties has been criticised for over-estimating the degree to which NST represents a unified phenomenon centred on specific andimpending ‘game-changing’developments (such as the advent of molecular manufacturing) andfor ignoring the wider social and ethical significance of relatively incremental developmentshere and now (Nordmann and Rip 2009). ‘De-futurisation’(Zülsdorf et al. 2011) of the rhetoricaround NST has sought to refocus attention on these incremental developments, which havefor the most part taken place in areas such as coatings for cars and clothing, medicines anddrug delivery (Besley, Kramer, and Priest 2008: 553), medical diagnostics (Winter et al. 2001),cosmetics, agrochemicals, and electronics. Other areas of interest are ‘functional foods’and foodpackaging (Lagaron et al. 2005), environmental applications like water purification and pollutionremediation(Zhang2003;SavageandDiallo2006),andrenewableenergy.Indeed,recentfutures-oriented work on the next decade of global NST development has stressed how NST techniquesmay have considerable value in areas tied to sustainability, particularly with respect to water useand energy production (Roco, Mirkin, and Hersam 2011).Nonetheless, even in the face of ‘de-futurisation’, uncertainties remain about the environment,health and safety (EHS) implications of NST applications, let alone their possible wider socialconsequences.Theseuncertaintiesfallwithinfourbroadareas(KearnesandRip2009)–scientificknowledge, commercial viability, public acceptance (arising from mistrust of industry and reg-ulators), and regulatory (concerning how regulators should respond to the first three forms of uncertainty). Formulating a coherent regulatory response is rendered difficult, however, by thereliance of regulators on incomplete scientific knowledge regarding hazards and exposure levelsthat may be associated with the wide variety of different applications of NST, together with thetransaction costs associated with high levels of statutory regulation. As a result, a move towardstypes of regulation which encourage good behaviour rather than punish bad (Webb 2004) – byfor example, encouraging information sharing and adaptive forms of risk governance – has beenpromoted as a solution to the ‘control dilemma’ affecting NST, and other emerging technolo-gies (Collingridge 1980). Among these are ‘soft law’ and corporate social responsibility-basedapproaches(LeeandJose2008).Inaddition,otherapproachestogovernancehavebeenidentifiedwhichrecognisethattheinherentcapacityofemergingtechnologiestoproducesurprisesrequiresthat regulation be based on more than just analytic capability and empirical research: to dealwith complex uncertainties, it also requires institutional capacities for self-criticism and learn-ing, multiple epistemological perspectives, and a general future-oriented approach that remains
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ C a r d i f f U n i v e r s i t y ] , [ C h r i s t o p h e r G r o v e s ] a t 0 6 : 1 6 3 0 A p r i l 2 0 1 3
Four scenarios for nanotechnologies in the UK, 2011–2020
509attentivetothepossibilityofsurpriseswithoutfetishisingparticularspeculativefutures.Conceptsof future-focused, multi-stakeholder and iterative governance have been expressed in descrip-tions of ‘anticipatory governance’ (Barben et al. 2007), ‘responsible innovation’ (Guston 2006)or ‘responsible research and innovation’(Von Schomberg 2011).Regulation with these qualities requires elements of governance different to those that typify‘top-down’, statutory regulation. Among these elements are often listed codes of conduct (e.g.Bowman and d’Silva 2011), voluntary data-sharing between academia and industry on the onehand, and regulators on the other (Dorbeck-Jung 2007) and upstream and
/
or deliberative publicengagement (Kearnes, Macnaghten, and Wilsdon 2006). Some of these elements (together withstandardisation and certification of products) have been brought together in the proposed EUpolicyframeworkofresponsibleresearchandinnovationorRRI(vonSchomberg2011).Thechief contribution these elements are expected to make to improving regulation is how they may helpcreateinformationalfeedbackloopswhichwillsupport‘continual“socialintelligence”gathering’(Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 2008: 73), covering both any potential hazardsof new technologies and social concerns about their purposes and limitations, and thereby embednewtechnologiesmorefirmlywithinsociety.TheprojectofreshapingNSTgovernanceinthiswayhasbeenseenasatest-caseforhowregulationappropriatetootheremergingtechnologiesmaybedeveloped(Macnaghten,Kearnes,andWynne2005),suchassyntheticbiologyorgeoengineering.Judging how successful such measures might be and what challenges they may face is noteasy – the problems with ‘studying the future’, a realm where there are no facts (Jouvenel 1967:649), have been well-documented within futures studies. Where scenarios have been used astools for examining the social implications of possible and preferable NST futures, they haveoften focused on disruptive and somewhat speculative technological ‘pushes’ (e.g. Centre forResponsible Nanotechnology 2007), although they have sometimes taken a more incrementalistapproach, while still allowing for ‘wild card’events (e.g. Nanologue Project 2008). Other future-oriented work has focused largely on scientific and commercial needs, such as the need in theEU, UK and USA to deal with industry fragmentation and slow progress from basic innovation tomarket.These problems are seen as deriving in part from the dependency of NST value chains onsmall and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as on the sheer diversity of sectors in whichNSTisexpectedtomakeasignificantcontribution.Suchthemespredominatein,forexample,theUK Government’s nanotechnology strategy document for 2011–2014 (UK Government 2010),and the industry group Materials UK’s report ‘Nanotechnology: an IndustryView’(Materials UK2010), and are also reflected in a report spanning the next 20 years of NST evolution producedby the Department of Business, Industry and Skills’ Foresight programme in November 2010(Foresight Horizon Scanning Centre 2010). Meanwhile, a variety of recommendations to dealwithfragmentationintheUSindustryweremadewithinthecomprehensivefuture-orientedstudyofNSTtrendspublishedbytheWorldTechnologyEvaluationCenter(WTEC)inlate2010(Roco,Mirkin, and Hersam 2010; Roco, Mirkin, and Hersam 2011).To date, future-oriented academic and grey literature on NST has therefore not included muchsystematicreflectionontheopportunitiesandobstacleswhichattemptstoimplementadaptiveandanticipatory regulation might face. The relatively small amount of research which has been doneonattitudestovoluntaryregulationamongNSTcompaniessuggeststhatadaptiveandanticipatoryregulationmayrunintodifficultiesbecauseofthenatureoftheindustry–andparticularlyowingtoitsrelianceonenablinginnovationsproducedbysmallstart-upcompanies(e.g.Hellandetal.2008;Groves et al. 2011), which may face particular problems engaging in the kinds of reporting andotheractivitieswhichformthefocusofproposalsforadaptive
/
anticipatoryregulation.TheUKandUSgovernments’relativelyunsuccessfulexperimentswithvoluntaryreportingschemes(Maynard
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ C a r d i f f U n i v e r s i t y ] , [ C h r i s t o p h e r G r o v e s ] a t 0 6 : 1 6 3 0 A p r i l 2 0 1 3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Four scenarios for Nanotechnologies in the UK, 2011-2020
The future social value of nanoscale science and technology (NST) has been repeatedly represented as revolutionary. However, government and industry support for the commercialisation of NST has to confront four key areas of uncertainty: concerning potential…
(More)
237
Reads
1
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
