Abstract
In this article we explore the emergence of a cluster of social movement organisations that have critically taken issue with nanotechnology in Germany, the UK and internationally. By applying concepts borrowed from Social Movement Research we demonstrate that this cluster is a ‘spin-off’ from the preceding movement against agrofood biotechnology, however, never succeeds in mobilizing a comparable ‘antinanotechnology movement’. We argue that the turn toward participatory and deliberative practices that is characteristic of nanotechnology policy and, to a major extent, is based on the perceived threat of a ‘public backlash’ against nanotechnology, while being of little political impact, reinforces the activity of these critical organisations through the provision of political opportunities. We further argue that the stagnation of these organisations can be explained by low policy impact and low public responsiveness respectively and conclude that their trajectories hinge to a major extent on policy impact and the responsiveness of the mass-public. We end by making a concluding remark about the limits to the project of democratizing social contention through public engagement.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
ELSI programs were first developed in the context of the U.S.-led Human Genome Project.
Until 2001 ETC Group was called RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International). For a historical narrative see [6] (3–8).
Personal communication Pat Mooney, 13/10/2012.
At about the same time, critical reflection came more from groups advocating arms control, such as the UK-based ACRONYM Institute.
Interview FoE Australia, 8/3/2011
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations.
The activist Jim Thomas, for example, was located in the UK until 2005 where he took on the nanotech-agenda for ETC In the mid 1990’s, he had been working on biotechnology for Greenpeace Australia.
Interview Greenpeace UK, 7/12/2012
A US anti nanotech direct action group calling itself “THONG” (Topless Humans Organised for Natural Genetics) was particularly active around 2005, suggesting shared frames and repertoires of action between the UK and the US at this time, and likely direct network ties. http://www.treehugger.com/culture/nano-tech-street-protest-on-chicagos-magnificent-mile.html
There was network activity between French and UK activists at this time. and a conversation between French and UK direct actions. In France activists occupied site of the proposed Minatech nanotechnology research centre in Grenoble ([37]: 76) .
“Broad International Coalition Issues Urgent Call For Strong Oversight of Nanotechnology” July 31, 2007 (available at http://www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=26) The decision came on the initiative of Peter Melchett, Policy Director at the Soil Association and until 2000 executive director of Greenpeace UK, who had been prominent campaigner against GM crops. (Interview Soil Association, 12/12/2012)
see http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report/annexAcnAbbrev.pdf for timeline and stakeholders involved in the consultation.
The Commission was headed by Wolf-Michael Catenhusen, who had already presided the influential Parliamentary Enquiry Commission on Biotechnology ‘Chances und Risks of Genetic Technology’ (1984–1986).
BUND even asked the influential NGO to participate in the Nano-Kommission, however, in vain. (Interview BUND 11/2/2011)
This is not to say that all organizations who run nano-watch campaigns are exclusively and necessarily GM-spin offs. Most groups have been active in other fields, too, and trade unions who play key roles are mostly concerned with occupational safety and anti-toxics NGOs.
It is worth noting, however, that forums such as the ESF in 2004 and the World Social Forum in 2005, where ETC was instrumental in catalysing debates on nanotechnology, are autonomous hybrid forums deliberatively organised outside the policy process.
Interview BUND, 7/2/2011
Interview BUND, 7/2/2011
References
Åm H (2011) Trust as glue in nanotechnology governance networks. Nanoethics 5(1):115–128
Bronson D, Shand H, Thomas J (2011) Earth grab: geopiracy, the New biomassters and capturing climate genes. Pambazuka Press, Cape Town
BUND (2008) BUND position “for the responsible management of nanotechnology.” A preliminary discussion paper focussing on the example of nanoparticles. Retrieved November 7, 2013 from http://www.bund.net/fileadmin/bundnet/publikationen/nanotechnologie/20090204_nanotechnologie_bund_positionspapier_englisch.pdf
Della Porta D, Kriesi H-P, Rucht D (1999) Social movements in a globalising world. Houndsmills. Macmillan, Basingstoke
Delgado A, Lein Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2011) Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(6):826–845
ETC (2001) ETC. Century: erosion, technological transformation, and corporate concentration in the 21st century. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/etc-century-erosion-technological-transformation-and-corporate-concentration-21st-century
ETC (2003) The big down: atomtech – technologies converging at the atomic scale. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/thebigdown.pdf
ETC (2004) Down on the farm: the impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/80/02/etc_dotfarm2004.pdf
ETC (2005a) Nanotech’s ‘second nature’ patents: implications for the global south. ETC. Group Special Report – Communiqués, 87 & 88. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/54/02/com8788specialpnanomar-jun05eng.pdf
ETC (2005b) NanoGeoPolitics. ETC. Group Surveys the Political Landscape. ETC. Group Special Report – Communiqué, 89. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/51/01/com89specialnanopoliticsjul05eng.pdf
ETC (2005c) The potential impacts of nano-scale technologies on commodity markets: the implications for commodity dependent developing countries. South Centre Trade Research Papers, 4. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/45/01/southcentre.commodities.pdf
ETC (2006) Nanotech Rx-Medical applications of Nano-scale technologies: what impact on marginalized communities? Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/593/01/etc06nanotechrx.pdf
ETC (2010) The big downturn? Nanogeopolitics. A new report from ETC. Group. ETC. Group Communiqué, 105. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/pdf_file/nano_big4web.pdf
FoE (2006) Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from www.foeeurope.org/activities/nanotechnology/nanocosmetics.pdf
FoE (2007) Nanosilver – a threat to soil, water and human health? Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://nano.foe.org.au/node/190
FoE (2008) Out of the laboratory and on to our plates. Nanotechnology in food and agriculture. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report117.pdf
FoE (2010) Nanotechnology, climate and energy: over-heated promises and hot air? Retrieved November 7, 2013, from www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/nanotechnology_climate.pdf
FoE Australia (2006a) The disruptive social impacts of nanotechnology. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://nano.foe.org.au/node/152
FoE Australia (2006b) Size does matter. Nanotechnology: Small Science - Big Questions! Chain Reaction 97 (Special issue on nanotechnology). Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://foe.org.au/sites/default/files/CR97.pdf
Greenpeace UK (2003) Future technologies, today's choices. Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5886.pdf
Greenpeace (2007) Nanotechnology: policy & position paper. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://www.greenpeace.org/denmark/Global/denmark/p2/other/report/2007/nanotechnology-policy-positi.pdf
Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Rowe G, Pidgeon N, Poortinga W, O’Riordan T (2007) The GM debate: risk, politics and public engagement. Routledge, London
Jamison A (2009) Can nanotechnology be just? On nanotechnology and the emerging movement for global justice. Nanoethics 3(2):129–136
Jones R (2007) What have we learned from public engagement? Nat Nanotechnol 2(5):262–263
Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) (2009) Governing future technologies. Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, Heidelberg
Kaufmann A, Joseph C, El-Bez C, Audétat M (2009) Why enrol citizens in the governance of nanotechnology. In: Maasen S, Kaiser M, Kurath M, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies: nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 201–215
Kenneth D, Thompson P (2008) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic, Amsterdam
McAdam D (1995) “Initiator” and “spin-off” movements: diffusion processes in protest cycles. In: Traugott M (ed) Repertoires and cycles of collective action. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 217–239
McAdam D, McCarthy J, Meyer ZN (1996) Comparative perspectives on social movements : political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Miller G, Scrinis G (2010) The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: challenging the ‘benefits versus risks’ framing of nanotech innovation. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 409–445
Mooney P (1979) Seeds of the earth: a private or public resource? Inter Pares, Ottawa
Oberschall A (1973) Social conflict and social movements. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Plows A, Reinsborough M (2011) Encountering ‘the politics of technology’: public engagement from the bottom up. In: Zülsdorf TB, Coenen C, Fiedeler U, Ferrari A, Milburn C, Wienroth M (eds) Quantum engagements - social reflections of nanoscience and emerging technologies. AKA, Berlin, pp 91–108
Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15(4):349–365
Royal Society (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society, London
Rucht D (1999) The transnationalization of social movements: trends, causes, problems. In: Della Porta D, Kriesi H-P, Rucht D (eds) Social movements in a globalising world. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 206–222
Seifert F (2013) Diffusion and policy learning in the nanotechnology field: movement actors and public dialogues in Germany and France. In: Konrad K, Coenen C, Dijkstra A, Milburn C, van Lente H (eds) Shaping emerging technologies: governance, innovation, discourse. AKA, Berlin, pp 67–82
Singh J (2008) The UK Nanojury as ‘upstream’ public engagement. Participatory Learn Action 58:27–32. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02854.pdf
Snow DA, Benford R (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest. In: Morris AD, Mueller C (eds) Frontiers in social movement theory. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 133–156
Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues: experiments in public engagement with science. Demos, London
Tarrow S (1998) Power in movement. Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tarrow S (2005) The new transnational activism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wilsden J, Willis R (2004) See through science; why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
Wullweber J (2008) Nanotechnology - an empty signifier à venir? A delineation of a techno-socio-economical innovation strategy. Sci Technol Innov Stud 4(1):27–45
Wynne B (2006) Upstream public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music? Public Health Genom 9(3):211–220
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful advice. Franz Seifert has been funded by the Austrian Science Fund (P 21812-G17).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seifert, F., Plows, A. From Anti-Biotech to Nano-Watch: Early Risers and Spin-Off Campaigners in Germany, the UK and Internationally. Nanoethics 8, 73–89 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0189-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0189-7