Module #3: Nanotechnology
Leader: Michael Cobb, NC State
Members: Peter Dunn, Purdue; Surya Mallapragada, Iowa State; Clark Miller, Wisconsin; Caroline Blanchard, Hawaii; Chi Archibong, NC A&T; Allyn Howlett, NC Central; Elizabeth DeValve, Fayetteville State; Bruce Lewenstein, Cornell; and Adam Short, NC State, Jr. Fellow.
The module will focus on problems that arise in the public communication of developments in nanotechnology. The module will build on original research contributions by team members Hoban and Lewenstein, focusing on the role of communication and media in public opinion. Is there too much emphasis in print and television journalism on the risks of the technology, not enough on its benefits? Do the exaggerations of the entertainment industry inevitably inhibit, or ultimately stimulate, informed public understanding?
How does public communication proceed apart from the media. For example, how is nanotech discussed in church basements, or pulpits? How would nanotech be framed in a public meeting held by a private company seeking a zoning variance to build a new plant, or tax rebates to move into the community? What kinds of rhetorical and conceptual tools are available for building trust between technical and non-technical communities? And how are those tools affected by the nanotech framing mechanisms employed by different groups?
Consider the website of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. Its narrative about possible misuses of the technology includes this paragraph:
The flexibility and small size of molecular manufacturing systems and their products may allow the creation of free-floating, foraging self-replicators: a "gray goo" that could eat the biosphere if it weren't stopped. Weapons and surveillance devices could be made small, cheap, powerful, and very numerous. Cheap manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to economic upheaval. (http://crnano.org/dangers.htm#Relinquishment)
Some of these worries are surely justified; the EPA has warned that “There is a serious lack of information about the human health and environmental implications of manufactured nanomaterials, e.g., nanoparticles, nanotubes, nanowires, fullerene derivatives, and other nanoscale materials,” and is soliciting research proposals that address these concerns (http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/current/2003_nano.html). But is the way in which the CRN has rhetorically framed the issue a productive one, listing worry after worry without mentioning the potential benefits to human health and environmental integrity?
This team will develop a module that leads students studying nanotechnology through some of the common public perceptions of the technology, the benefits and risks the public perceives in it, the ways in which media portrayals of nanotechnology inform or skew public perceptions, and how professionals in the field can be prepared to deal with these portrayals.