Fiona Fox (Science Media Centre, UK)
on communicating nanotechnology - a guideline for scientists

Nanotech - The Next Controversy alike GM?

One of the big questions facing nanotechnology is: Will it be the next GM?

My first answer is that it has definitely got all the right ingredients.
- It's a new and radical area of science.
- It has huge potential, leading to scary visions of self-replicating nanobots turning the world into 'grey goo' which appeal to the media who love nothing more than a good scare story.
- Nanotechnology also has some powerful adversaries in the form of Prince Charles, Zac Goldsmith and a number of campaigning environmental groups among others, all of whom know how to ensure their concerns are voiced in the media.

But on reflection, I would answer differently. Whether nanotechnology becomes the next GM is surely down in part to the scientists, companies and science press officers involved. Unless you think the scientific community utterly blameless in the GM debate, I think there are lessons that we can learn, especially in relation to the media. Here are my top tips on how I think we can ensure that nanotechnology does not become the next GM.

First of all, don't hype it up. According to an ESRC report, some scientists, 'nano-utopians', are claiming that nanotechnology will 'clean up' the environment, eradicate world poverty and free humanity from diseases, aging and death. Once you hype nanotechnology in this way, you cannot blame the media and critics for over-exaggerating the potential impacts.

Secondly, do tell the media about the benefits. For example, there was a lovely story in all the papers recently about a group of U.S. scientists who used nanotechnology to burn cancer tumours while leaving healthy tissue unhurt. If the public are to make a risk/benefit decision on nanotechnology, they must know what the benefits are. Part of the problem in GM is that they cannot see them.

Thirdly, ensure that it's you who tells the media about the risks, don't leave it to your critics. It would be a huge breakthrough if scientists spoke out more about the real risk areas while explaining how science and research can minimise the risks.

Fourthly, don't rubbish or demonise your critics. Arpad Puztai, who claimed GM potatoes were detrimental to rats, was found to be wrong but he became a media hero because he was vilified by scientists and sacked from his job. If a scientist is wrong, do say so, but understand that the way you say it can have a huge impact on the resulting story.

Don't flee when nanotechnology hits the headlines. When Prince Charles made his 'grey goo' claims in a five page article in the Mail on Sunday, the Science Media Centre struggled to meet the ensuing media demand for scientists to answer his charges. Yet for most of the public, this was their first introduction to nanotechnology. Everyone involved in the GM debate admits that, in the midst of the feeding-frenzy in 1999, most companies and scientists 'turned the other cheek'. Inevitably, the vacuum was filled by GM critics.

Tip number six is to 'think media'. The media like nanotechnology and they want stories, so think about what you can give them. Anything from papers at conferences, new research to new products can feed the hungry media machine and, if you don't, others will and you may not like their stories.

Number seven is to think about the language you use in media interviews, agree common language beforehand. Roger Highfield, the science editor of The Telegraph, says that 'nanotechnology' is just a fancy name for chemistry. You may not want to say it's 'just chemistry' but decide on a good way to describe it in a two minute interview and use it. The Science Media Centre and the Institute of Physics are currently working to produce a guide nanotechnology in a nutshell to provide more helpful suggestions.

My final tip is a much broader point. Don't refuse to engage with the debate at a broader, societal level. Caroline Lucas - MEP and vocal critic of nanotechnology - said "Unfortunately proponents of the new technology have learned from GM. Already they are presenting nanotechnology as a 'scientific issue' rather than a societal one". Caroline and others argue for a moratorium on nanotechnology research because we don't know what the risks are. In a Guardian article, she argued, "The reality is that no-one really knows what the long-term effects of manipulating matter at the atomic level is likely to be. We must therefore adopt a moratorium on the commercial production of nanotechnology."

I think scientists and the scientific community are amazingly well placed to debate whether we want a society that is framed by this cautionary approach or not. Should we be denying society the benefits of a new technology just because we cannot foresee every consequence? I think scientists are just as capable of presenting a vision of a better society as are campaigners. So, will nanotechnology become the next GM? If I tell you that not one of my eight tips was my own, that I got them all from discussions with scientists and science press officers who have been through the GM experience, I think there is a very good chance that it will not be. As I say, in a big part, it is down to us.

(c) Fiona Fox, editing by Martin Schäfer
 

Fiona Fox heads the Science Media Centre in London, UK. The Centre provides information for journalists whenever sciences hits the news. Her contribution is an edited talk she gave at a hearing of the European Parliament in Brussels (March 2004).

Science Media Centre, UK, at www.sciencemedia
centre.org

Debate on
 

Feedback

We are glad to receive your comments! Send us an e-mail