Nigel – Thanks as well. I imagine at some point a historian or sociologist will have some interesting things to say about the “social studies of nano.”

The passivity and nervousness that has characterised OSTP/NNI approaches to anything other than the technology itself needs to end, and a start could usefully be made by publishing ASAP the report on the one workshop that OSTP hosted (at/with ASU) more than two years ago on the ethical/social issues raised by nano, in the planning of which one or two of us were closely involved. It was a scoping exercise and came to no profound conclusions, but it made a start. Why it remains unpublished is unclear – Dave Guston and I duly wrote our chapters and took part in assorted telecons until they died out. Meanwhile, the Europeans have directed far more effort to the conversation; not, I think, because they are inherently more virtuous or perceptive, but because in GMO-land they see competitive advantage in raising the wider context early on.

Nigel Cameron

Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies

Of course, there are many complexities here. As an overarching concept, nanotechnology has undoubtedly inspired progress that probably wouldn’t have happened as fast without it – especially at the interfaces between traditional disciplines. But there has been tremendous confusion between the concept and what it leads to in practical terms (see for instance http://2020science.org/2008/05/17/decoupling-“nanotechnology”/). This, together with a certain amount of hype and “Whig history” which has muddied the decision-making waters for policy makers and other stakeholders.

And to cap it all, even where nanotechnology is underpinning transformative technologies (I hesitate to use the term “revolutionary”), what was transformative yesterday is mundane – and easily forgotten – tomorrow. As a result, there is a tendency to be always looking forward to the next great advance, while forgetting the ones that have already occurred.