Environmental consequences of the invisibility of nanotechnologies

1
Environmental consequences of the invisibility of
nanotechnologies

• José Manuel de Cózar-Escalante
• Eco-social Studies Centre
• University of La Laguna, Spain
• jcozar_at_ull.es
• Nano Ethics Network, 2nd Workshop
• Aarhus, 2-3 November, 2007

2
The nanohouse
www.innovationlab.dk
3
The glass house
Exhibition Design (James Muir) Sidney Olympic
Park19 February - 30 October 2005 http//www.hous
esofthefuture.com.au/hof_houses06.html
4
Objectives

• An article on the nanohouse project was
  published on this web site (www.nanovidensbank.dk)
  , a co-operation between the iNano Centre at the
  University of Aarhus and Innovation Lab, also in
  Aarhus
• Objective To use the nanohouse example to
  discuss several environmental consequences of the
  invisible aspects of some nanotech applications.
• At first glance, this may seem paradoxical...
• Synthesizing the main features of most
  nanohouses (See for instance Green Technology
  Forum http//www.greentechforum.net/greenbuild/
  ).

5
Materials

• Insulation glass, coatings , aerogel, etc.
• Coatings self-cleaning, anti-stain,
  depolluting, scratch-resistant, anti-fogging,
  anti-corrosion, anti-microbial, UV protection.
• Other materials plastic polymer,
  nano-adhesives, optical fibers, new structural
  materials, anti-bacterial, etc.

6
Sensors

• Alarms (break-ins, gas leaks, fire detection,
  etc.)
• To control the physical conditions inside the
  house (temperature, humidity, lighting, airflow,
  air purification) and other activities (cleaning,
  food, etc.)

7
Other equipment

• Energy storage (solar panels)
• Water and air purification systems
• Hardware (consumer electronic products such as
  TV, stereo, kitchen appliances, communication
  devices, etc.)

8
Nanotech invisibility comes from

• the extraordinarily small scale at which this
  work takes place (nanoscale),
• the difficulty in understanding the scientific
  theories on which they are based,
• modern sciences emphasis on mathematics
  (abstraction disassociated from the every-day
  world, modelization, virtualization) (Frodeman
  2006),
• the lack of effort put into communication by
  many experts in this field,
• the secrecy of some areas of research (military,
  national security, private sector),
• the abuse of hyperbolic rhetoric used in favour
  and against nanotechnology (Berube, 2006)
• the lack of star products in the market,
• technological somnambulism. Most of the time
  citizens can be compared to sleepwalkers who are
  unaware of how technology mediates their lives
  (Winner 1986),
• etc.

9
Some clarification

• A very heterogeneous list of meanings that
  relates to some nanotech applications more than
  to others.
• The invisibility of nanotechnology, more that an
  obscure metaphor.
• First, a brief conceptual clarification the
  opposite of visible is invisible the opposite of
  transparent is opaque. However, when used to
  express values, these concepts are ambiguous.
• Something opaque has a visible surface that we
  are unable to see through so, although we can
  see the opaque object or process it is
  difficult (if not impossible) to understand and
  control its inner workings.
• On the other hand, a transparent object is
  invisible (or almost invisible), but we use the
  word transparent to express a positive
  appreciation of a political decision-making
  process.

10
Opaque and transparent objects

• The opaque (watch) The transparent object is here

Dont you see it?
11
What we are seeking

• Visibility of what lies underneath, and...
• ... transparency of what lies on the surface.
• In other words, nanotech should be visible and
  transparent at the same time.

12
Meanings of transparent
An epistemic state E is transparent to a subject
S if and only if when S is in state E, S can know
that S is in state E (ex. pain)
13
Literally becoming invisible

• Nanosensors in the soil, the air and even the
  human body employed to detect dangerous
  substances, control communications or fight
  internal and alien enemies. Other invisible
  devices invisible airplanes and computer systems
  that monitor communications (not specifically
  nanotechnological).
• Nanotechnological devices are predicted to be
  extremely minute, undetectable, and powerful.
• Invisibility directly linked to secrecy.
• An invisible suit for soldiers?

14
An invisible environment

• The main problem of some emerging technologies
  (such as ambient intelligence, distributed
  computing, GMOs and some kinds of nanotechnology)
  is that they no longer signify mastery of nature
  but take on the character of nature itself
  (Alfred Nordmann 2005).
• These naturalized technologies create a
  quasi-natural environment in which we live,
  although we are unaware of how they work.
• They are transparent in a negative sense we are
  unable to perceive them with our senses or
  intellect. In ethical and political terms they
  are opaque.

15
What is wrong with an invisible technology?

• The more opaque a technology is, the more
  difficult it is to control democratically (e.g.
  civilian and military uses of nuclear power,
  information technologies used for national
  security).
• Moreover, this invisibility is often sought
  after by technology promoters, e.g. the
  opposition to tracking and labelling of GMOs in
  the market.
• If nanotech remains invisible the public may
  become hostile to applications that become
  visible in an inappropriate manner.
• On the other hand, because the social and
  environmental impact of many nanotech
  applications would unquestionably be highly
  visible and significant, most critics worry that
  they might be undemocratically imposed without
  public debate or transparent decision making.

16
Making nanotech visible

• A paradox the fact that nanotechnological
  developments might increase technical agency
  throughout the world could provoke an unethical
  decrease in individual and collective agency.
• Democratic mastery of these new technologies
  implies an adequate understanding of its more
  relevant functional attributes .
• In order to obtain this understanding and
  democratic control, nanotechnologies need a
  proper cultural adaptation or social
  representation, the construction of a social
  imaginary that is not imposed, but rather based
  on public, active participation and
  responsibility.
• Formulas that can be implemented to make
  nanotechnologies visible to the social sphere in
  a democratic fashion (public participation
  methods and community-based research).
• Another approach using representational chains
  to make nanotechnology visible.

17
The nanohouse as representation

• Are all aspects of the technology used to create
  the nanohouse visible when we see the finished
  product?
• Does the nanohouse adequately represent how
  nanotechnology is used in its design,
  construction and operation?
• Benefits, drawbacks and ethical dilemmas that
  could arise during the production process and
  life cycle of the nanomaterials (design,
  production, transport, storage, usage and
  disposal).
• What about the quality of the representations
  offered by the nanohouse?
• Three different (although interconnected) ways
  of representing 1. through the macroscopic
  effects of nanotech
• 2. through the technical code inscribed in its
  design
• 3. as a demonstration of the possibilities of
  nanotech.

18
Representation through macroscopic effects

• A crucial element in the publics perception,
  understanding and eventual acceptance of the
  technology at stake
• Effects invisible but tangible.
• Examples rust-resistant paint, glass that
  darkens as sunlight increases, nanosensors which
  monitor and regulate the physical conditions
  inside and outside the house, etc.
• Although some nanotech materials and devices are
  already being incorporated into every day
  products, consumers are not conscious of this
  unless the company that is selling them markets
  the nanotech components as an added value.
• From a democratic point of view, the fact that
  companies are eager to reveal the nanotech
  features of their products is beneficial.
• However, companies could simply make no
  reference to the worrisome aspects of their
  products.

19
Looking through the window

• When owners of nanohouses look through their
  transparent windows, they do not see the
  invisible system that regulates the amount of
  light that can pass through the glass.
• When the glass darkens, when it becomes opaque,
  it literally and metaphorically hides the
  environment outside the house.

www.innovationlab.dk
20
Representing through scripts

• The nanohouse also represents nanotechnology
  through the script (actor-network theory) or
  technical code (Feenberg) inscribed in its
  design.
• This script acts as the vision of a nascent
  technology. It defines the problem to solve,
  frames it, assigns roles to and relationships
  between objects and people, it establishes the
  configuration of the technologys entire network.
  
• The script is crucial in distributing agency
  between different actors involved.
• The technical code holds the technical
  specifications of the technology. It provides us
  with the basic definition of a technical object
  or system. These features are specified in a way
  that reflects the significant social values at
  stake, the social meaning, as they are assumed
  by the promoters of the technology.

21
How the technical code is made visible

• The script-technical code is usually visible to
  a few in manuals and other technical literature -
  even in the statements made by its creators.
• It remains invisible to most people, because
  the values it incorporates are culturally rooted,
  or they are (for different reasons) not a subject
  of discussion.
• It may become highly visible through
  controversy, be it technical, political or
  otherwise.
• The nanohouse can play a significant role as a
  manifestation of what a house should be in the
  future as a prototype (or a sort of
  kuhnianexemplar) for further development in
  this field.

22
Definition of the objective

• To achieve an adequate level of comfort and
  protection for users and sustainability through
  exclusively technological means.
• Comfort is defined in terms of demanding Western
  standards.
• Sustainability is understood mainly in terms of
  energy efficiency.
• The most natural" or traditional ways of
  achieving both objectives  (comfort and
  sustainability) are discarded for example, a
  bioclimatic architectural design inspired by the
  popular architectural legacy. 
• The larger environment where the nanohouse is
  built and the repercussions of the production of
  the material and equipment needed for its
  construction (the life cycle of the product) are
  not fully considered.

23
Distribution of agency

• Devices are assigned an active and friendly role
  (they take care of everything)
• Users (of the house) are assigned a passive
  role as the beneficiaries of the technological
  system.
• The natural environment appears either as a
  supply of resources  (e.g. sunlight converted
  into energy) or as a hostile agent from which
  users must be protected.

24
Meaning or interpretation conveyed

• Thanks to nanotechnology we can live as well or
  better than we did in houses in the past or
  present.
• By leaving experts to resolve problems, we can
  remain unconcerned users, without changing our
  habits or even consciously exerting control over
  our environment.
• Nanotechnology can solve all our problems,
  including problems that it itself generates.
• The nanohouse is the best way to achieve
  sustainable housing.

25
Demonstrative representation

• The nanohouse is intended to play a significant
  role as a demonstrator of the potential of
  nanotechnological applications to build smart
  houses.
• This role can be accomplished directly by
  letting people experience living in a house
  that uses nanotechnology, or indirectly, through
  media coverage
• illustrations,
• articles,
• tv broadcasts,
• etc.

26
Some media headlines

• Nanohouse brings Nanotechnology home
• (http//www.csiro.au/files/mediarelease/mr2003/Prn
  anohouse.htm)
• Big technology is shrinking our world
• (www.infolink.com.au/articles/AB/0C03C0AB.aspx)
• The smart home
• (www.innovationlab.dk/sw19071.asp?usepftrue)
  

27
Epistemological and political representation

• The different ways that the nanohouse serves as
  representation have something in common the
  house acts as a sort of mediator or
  representative between the public and its
  promoters.
• Scientists, engineers (and architects) represent
  nanoparticles and nanostructures on the human
  level. They enter the political arena endowed
  with an epistemological power that is transformed
  into political power, into agency, into the
  ability to carry out actions.
• Representational networks extend from the
  laboratory to the social sphere in a
  "self-vindicating" dynamic (Hacking 1983) where
  epistemological and political representations
  reinforce each other reciprocally.
• Networks of human or non-human actors aspire to
  control every facet of the representation through
  a chain of translations or mediations (Latour
  2005).

28
Conveyed imaginary Nanomaterials are smart,
natural ones are dumb

• Smart materials have almost endless potential
  they can change in response to their surroundings
  in ways that natural (dumb materials) dont. Some
  materials could have tiny computers embedded in
  them which can send signals - like tyres that
  tell your car when the tread is wearing unevenly,
  or paint that alerts your house of a gas leak or
  an electrical fault. Really smart materials could
  change colour on command, or generate electricity
  during the day and make it available at night.
  Imagine coatings that refuse to become dirty, and
  heal themselves when damaged!
• (Houses of the future website,
• http//www.housesofthefuture.com.au/hof_houses06.h
  tml )

29
Which representation of the nanohouse?

• Promoting an imaginary based on technical
  control and energy efficiency,
• Omitting less savoury aspects of the
  technological system in a global world (e.g. the
  asymmetrical distribution of costs and benefits).
  
• In order to make a technology our own and
  integrate it harmoniously into our lives we must
  first use it so that we can comprehend it,
  assimilate it and elaborate a sufficiently
  coherent and rich imaginary.
• That is, symbolic appropriation or cultural
  appropriation (Andrew Jamison).

30
Kinds of representation

• ? Symbolic appropriation ?
• Visual Epistemological-Technical Social
  Political
•  
• ? Imposition

31
Alternative representation

• Citizens need to have access to the technical
  code of the nanohouse in order to decide whether
  it is a proper solution to sustainable housing.
• This process has to do with the quality of both
  epistemological and political representations.
• Epistemologically, the chains of representations
  that connect laboratory research with the design
  of nanohouse components should be explicit and
  clearly communicated and debated.
• Politically, citizens should have proper
  representation in the decision-making process.
• The technical code translates political
  decisions into technical and epistemological
  constraints. This translation movement should be
  made visible, that is, it should be unmasked,
  exposed and criticized (Feenberg 1999).

32
A wider view (the life cycle)
Possible exposure routes for nanoparticles based
on current and potential future applications
(adopted from Klöpffer, Walter et al. 2007,
Nanotechnology and Life Cycle Assessment.
Synthesis of Results Obtained at a Workshop
Washington, DC 23 October 2006, Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars).
33
If we continue to pan out (Nanohouses
environment)
Alternative designs and solutions
Regulation, financing
Natural surroundings Grass, trees, GMOs?...
The social landscape, e.g., haves and
haves-nots
Environmental problems at a global scale
Life cycle of nanomaterials, energy used in
production
And much more
34
Some issues to be debated

• The potential risks to the environment and human
  beings that can arise during the entire life
  cycle of nanotech housing technology, such as
  toxicity and ecotoxicity.
• Whether nanotechnology can be a universal
  solution to environmental problems (the gaps in
  theoretical as well at applied levels of nanotech
  for sustainability).
• The wider environmental, social, economic and
  ethical problems of extensively developing
  nanohouses.
• Whether substantial changes should be promoted
  (together with feasible technical solutions) in
  attitudes towards consumption, traditional
  solutions for housing, distribution of costs and
  benefits on a global scale, respect for nature,
  etc.

35
Looking for transparency

• Principle V. Transparency. Assessment and
  oversight of nanomaterials requires mechanisms
  ensuring transparency, including labelling of
  consumer products that contain nanomaterials,
  installing workplace right to know laws and
  protective measures, and developing a publicly
  accessible inventory of health and safety
  information.
• Various signatories, Declaration, Principles for
  the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and
  Nanomaterials, 2007.

36
Conclusion

• In an environment where GMOs are invisibly
  altering living beings, where 90 percent of
  existent species are invisible and therefore more
  easily extinguished by human activity, it is
  crucial not to foster invisibility or
  obscurantism, be it technical or other.

37
Still sleepwalking?
Lets avoid becoming technological sleepwalkers
in our own nanohouse! (THANKS!)
38
References

• Akrich, Madeleine, 1992 The De-Scription of
  Technical Objects, in Bijker, Wiebe y Law, John
  (ed.) Shaping Technology, Bulding Society
  Cambridge (Massachussetts) The MIT Press
• Berube, D.M. 2006, Nano-hype. The Truth Behind
  the Nanotechnology Buzz, Prometheus Books, New
  York.
• de Cózar Escalante, J.M. 2006, Representation as
  a matter of agency a reflection on
  nanotechnological innovations, Proceedings of
  the Conference Participatory Approaches in
  Science Technology (PATH), 4-7 June, Edinburg.
• de Cózar Escalante, J.M.,Nanotechnologies
  environment and human nature at risk?, in
  Bioethics, global and societal aspects, European
  Association of Global Bioethics, forthcoming.
• Dupuy, Jean-Pierre 2005, The Philosophical
  Foundations of Nanoethics. Arguments for a
  method, Paper presented at the NanoEthics
  Conference, University of South Carolina,
  Columbia, SC, March 2-5.
• Feenberg, Andrew 1999, Questioning Technology,
  Routledge.
• Frodeman, Robert 2006, Nanotechnology The
  Visible and the Invisible, Science as Culture
  vol. 15, n. 4, 383-389.
• Hacking, Ian 1983, Representing and intervening
  introductory topics in the philosophy of natural
  science, Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
• Jamison, A. 2006, Hubris or Hybrids? On the
  Cultural Assessment of Nanotechnology Easst
  Review, Volume 25(3) September http//www.easst.ne
  t/review/oct2006/jamison.

39
More references

• Klöpffer, Walter et al. 2007, Nanotechnology and
  Life Cycle Assessment. Synthesis of Results
  Obtained at a Workshop Washington, DC 23 October
  2006, Woodrow Wilson International Center for
  Scholars.
• Latour, B. 2005, Reassembling the social. An
  Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford
  University Press.
• Nordmann, Alfred 2005, Noumenal Technology
  Reflections on the Incredible Tininess of Nano,
  Techné Research in Philosophy and Technology,
  Spring , vol. 8, N. 3.
• Nordmann, Alfred 2008, Technology Naturalized,
  in P. E. Vermaas et al. (eds.), Philosophy and
  Design, forthcoming.
• Rickerby, David and Mark Morrison 2007, Report
  from the Workshop on
• Nanotechnologies for Environmental Remediation,
  JRC Ispra 16-17 April.
• http//www.nanoforum.org/dateien/temp/NANOFORUM_Re
  port_Remediation_Workshop20final.pdf?221020071207
  09
• Winner, Landong 1986, The Whale and the Reactor
  A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology.
  Chicago University of Chicago Press.

40
(No Transcript)