Nanotechnology: A solution to developing countries problems Trends in Social Sciences

1
Nanotechnology A solution to developing
countries problems?Trends in Social Sciences

• Dra. Noela Invernizzi
• Federal University of Parana
• Brazil

2006 AAAS Conference - St. Louis, MO
2
Nanotechnologies

• An industrial revolution in the making
• More disruptive and faster than the previous
  ones
  
• Extended to the whole globe

3

• What will be the impacts of nanotechnologies
• on developing countries?
• on the poor (78 of the world population)?

4
This is a matter of controversy
3 different positions can be identified Nano
technologies as a solution for the poor
Nanotechnologies as a catching up opportunity
Nanotechnologies under scrutiny
5
1. Nanotechnologies as a solution for the poor

• Technical benefits to overcome serious poverty
  problems
  
• energy
• agricultural productivity
• water treatment
• diagnosis of diseases
• Nanotechnologies could help to achieve at least 5
  of the 8 Millennium Development Goals
  
• Examples
• Canadian Joint Center for Bioethics/University of
  Toronto (2005)
  
• Task force on Science, Technology and
  Innovation/UN Development Project (2005)
  
• Organizers of the North-South Dialogue on
  Nanotechnology/UNIDO (2005)
  
• G8 meeting in Scotland (2005)

6
2. Nanotechnologies as a catching up opportunity

• This perspective is clear in several developing
  countries nanotechnology policies which main
  goal is to increase competitiveness
  
• As nanotechnology is an entirely new technical
  revolution, it offers opportunities for catching
  up, regardless to previous ST performance
  
• Examples
• APEC Center for Technology Foresight for the APEC
  region (APEC-CTF, 2002a Tegart, 2004)
  
• Nanotechnology policies in Latin American
  countries

7
3. Nanotechnologies under scrutiny

• Health and environmental risks, and social and
  economic implications of nanotechnologies may
  reinforce inequality and increase the rich-poor
  gap
• Raw material substitution (impacts on exports and
  employment)
  
• Research agendas focused on competitiveness, not
  on social needs
  
• Patent barriers
• Weak regulation in developing countries
• May increase technological dependency
• Lack of public information, debate and
  participation in decision making
  
• Examples
• Meridian Institute (2005)
• ETC Group (2005)
• Maclurcan (2005)
• South Centre (2005)

8

• These different points of view are often
  presented as a controversy between
  
• Pessimists vs optimists
• or
• Forces of progress vs luddits

9

• I will argue that this controversy shows two
  different trends in Social Sciences
  
• a) To work in defense of the mainstream
  development model and top-down technological
  trajectories
  
• Nano for the Poor
• Catching up nanotechnologies
• b) To help building an alternative development
  model in which technological paths are
  democratically constructed
  
• Social critics of nanotechnologies

10

Why nanotech for the poor and catching up
approaches reinforce mainstream development
model?
11
Nano for the poor the conventional technical
approach

• Takes nanotech for granted, underscoring other
  technological alternatives for poverty problems
  
• Problems that has to do with social/economic
  issues (energy, water or diseases) are understood
  as just technical issues
  
• No context analysis/no technology transfer
  analysis. Mechanical vision of the relationship
  between technology and society
  
• Experts know what technologies may solve the
  problems of the poor. No role for civil society
  

12
Catching up nanotechnologies a new version of
the linear model of innovation?

• Nanotechnologies expansion is inexorable
• Developing countries have no choice but to
  embrace nanoscience and nanotechnology if they
  hope to build successful economies in the long
  term. M. Hassan, President of the TWAS
  (Science, 2005)
• Innovation studies complexity is very reduced in
  policy proposals. The traditional linear
  conception prevails innovation ? competitiveness
  ? economic development ? social welfare
• It is little or not concerned with socio-economic
  implications of nanotechnology, nor with civil
  society participation in decision making

13

• Working for an alternative way of technology
  development

14

• Social Sciences may contribute to a more
  democratic and equality-oriented technological
  development in developing countries
  
• Learning from past STS experience
• Evaluating technology in the context of
  prevailing socio-economic tendencies
  

15
Learn from past experience with other
technologies in order to

• Avoid past mistakes (GMOs) transparent public
  information, public participation, avoid expert
  control, establish regulation
  
• Prevent ST development divorced from social
  needs as it is common in biomedical research
  
• Consider the consequences of introducing new
  technologies adopt precautionary principle,
  evaluate potential risks and implications, allow
  time for this process of evaluation (slow down)

16
Evaluate nanotechnology in the context of the
prevailing socio-economic trends

• Macroeconomic trends are determining forces of
  the way in which new technologies are developed
  and used
  
• Globalization implies tendencies towards the
  concentration of wealth that link the new
  technologies to its dynamics

17

• After a couple of decades of intense
  technological innovation (microelectronics, ICT,
  biotechnology) ...
  
• The era of globalization has been marked by
  dramatic advances in technology, trade and
  investmentand an impressive increase in
  prosperity. Gains in human development have been
  less impressive. Large parts of the developing
  world are being left behind. Human development
  gaps between rich and poor countries, already
  large, are widening.
• (UNDP, HDR 2005)

18

• If recent technological innovations havent help
  reducing poverty and inequality,
  
• why would it be different now?

19

• If nanotechnologies are considered within the
  prevailing economic forces, it will be unlikely
  that they will offer advantages to the poor
  
• This does not mean that developing countries
  could not be able to take advantage of markets
  niches and successfully develop specific areas of
  nanoscience and nanotechnologies.
• But, the macroeconomic success of the country
  does not mean that its own poor people will
  benefit.
  

20

• Is it possible to engage social sciences and
  society upstream in nanotechnology construction
  in developing countries?

21
The Latin American context

• Nanotechnology policies are not concerned with
  economic, social or ethical implications, nor
  with risk evaluation ? no formal place for social
  scientists
• Brazil social scientists pressures for research
  funds for these issues
  
• The scientific community has been historically
  very autonomous, and separated from the people by
  a cultural gap. It is reluctant to accept lay
  opinions from the public
• Social and Hard Scientists dialogue is
  difficult
  
• STS studies institutionalization is poor, and
  its capacity to influence ST policy is weak

22

• Scientific controversies have entered the public
  scene recently (with GMOs), giving place to
  social movements and social scientists
  involvement (as advisers or researchers)
• GMOs controversy marked an historical divide in
  public awareness and organization around ST
  issues an opportunity for a new technology
  governance approach?

23

• Thank you!
• noela_at_ufpr.br