European Public Advice on Nanobiotechnology—Four Convergence Seminars

Abstract

In order to explore public views on nanobiotechnology (NBT), convergence seminars were held in four places in Europe; namely in Visby (Sweden), Sheffield (UK), Lublin (Poland), and Porto (Portugal). A convergence seminar is a new form of public participatory activity that can be used to deal systematically with the uncertainty associated for instance with the development of an emerging technology like nanobiotechnology. In its first phase, the participants are divided into three “scenario groups” that discuss different future scenarios. In the second phase, the participants are regrouped into three “convergence groups”, each of which contains representatives from each of the three groups from the first phase. In the final third phase, all participants meet for a summary discussion. This pilot project had two aims: (1) to develop and assess the new methodology and (2) to gather advice and recommendations from the public that may be useful for future decisions on nanobiotechnology (NBT). Participants emphasized that they wanted the technology to focus on solutions to environmental and medical problems and to meet the needs of developing countries. The need for further public participation and deliberation on NBT issues seemed to be acknowledged by all participants. Many of them also raised equality concerns. Views on the means by which NBT should be steered into socially useful directions were more divided. In particular, different views were expressed on how much regulation of company activities is needed to curb unwanted developments. The participants’ responses in a questionnaire indicate that the methodology of the convergence seminars was successful for decision-making under uncertainty. In particular, the participants stated that their advice was influenced both by access to different possible future developments and by the points of view of their co-participants, which is what the method is specifically intended to achieve.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Scenarios and questions for phase 1

Scenario 2011 (common to all groups)

We are at the beginning of year 2011. Politicians and policy-makers in Europe are facing crucial decisions on whether or not to promote the development of nanobiotechnology. (As a reminder, here is the definition given to you earlier: Nanotechnology is about investigating, manipulating and engineering matter that is roughly situated at the level of molecules and atoms. Nanobiotechnology is the branch that concerns the biological or biochemical application of nanotechnology, as well as the creation of biological nanostructures. It also covers the tools and devices developed for working with these extremely small units.)

In 2011, this technology has left the labs and is increasingly being applied to various fields such as medicine, ICT (information and communication technology) and energy production. The supporters of nanobiotechnology are calling for more funding and for liberal policy and legislation concerning its commercial applications. They believe that with further economical and political support, we now are able to develop the most sophisticated systems of communication and, more importantly, cure a long list of previously incurable diseases.

On the other hand, an increasing amount of concern and protest is being raised against nanobiotechnology. Critics believe that the application of nanobiotechnology will have reverse impacts on our health and well-being: exposing people to new health risks, infringing on our freedom and privacy. Again, many believe that such worries are futile, since any withdrawal or restrictions on funding will only force Europe to lag behind countries such as the US and China in the development of nanobiotechnology.

Scenario A

We are at the beginning of year 2020. In general, since 2011, European politicians have taken a very precautionary stance towards nanotechnology. Certain areas have received a lot of support, such as the development of energy- storage and production. This support has helped advance successful methods for energy production such as nano-coated solar cells and nano-catalysts that are used for hydrogen generation. Nanobiotechnology has also been developed for water treatment and purification. The combination of these methods has had a great positive impact on the environment, not only in Europe but also in many developing countries.

Even so, European politicians have made a joint decision to generally restrict financial support to further research in nanobiotechnology. In a similar line, they have also restrained application of nanobiotechnology in ICT and medicine. Many European countries have adopted considerable legislation in order to stop any chance of uncontrollable and potentially harmful nanoparticles entering the body and causing damage. Much of nanobiotechnology aiming for diagnostics and treatment (such as drug-delivery, nanosensors and nano-engineered tissue) is affected by this legislation and, if not illegal, these methods are very rarely applied in medicine.

Meanwhile countries outside Europe have chosen a completely different path. The United States and Canada are putting a huge amount of funding toward medicine enhanced by nanobiotechnology. Although there are a few reports of serious side effects, even death incidents, related to the use of nanoparticles; on balance medical treatment has been substantially improved thanks to the new methods of nanobiotechnology. Many Europeans have also chosen to go overseas to get nano-engineered tissue implants that are forbidden in Europe.

Other countries such as China and Japan take the lead in nano-related ICT-research that has provided great economic benefits. Also from a purely economical standpoint, Europe is lagging far behind these countries. Unemployment, especially in the technological areas, is much higher in the European countries than what it was 10 years ago and most young researchers have little choice but to find work outside Europe. It is generally recognised that the restrictions put on nanobiotechnology 10 years ago, is a major reason why Europe so rapidly has lost, and continues to lose, ground to many countries.

Some international collaborations and partnerships have all the same been set up between Europe and other countries; especially in the nanotechnological research that concerns sustainability and energy production. On the whole, however, the countries that put nanotechnology development high up on the agenda tend to cooperate with each other rather than with Europe. The decision not to further nanbiotechnology development has created a role for Europe as the old-fashioned sceptics.

You have read a possible scenario of how the development and application of nanobiotechnology has affected life in 2020. The scenario also describes the results of certain decisions made in 2011. Our questions to you are:

• 1. What do you think of the scenario? Which are the positive and negative aspects?

• 2. What can we learn from the scenario?

• 3. Should different decisions have been made in 2011?

Scenario B

We are at the beginning of year 2020. Thanks to the support toward nanobiotechnological research in Europe, since 2011, some major breakthroughs have taken place in medicine. Medical applications now dominate the field of nanotechnology and a lot of new jobs have been created in this area. One important novelty is the use of nanoparticles in selective treatment of neurological diseases and brain-tumours. A kind of nano-carrier is used to carry therapeutic agents (medicine) across the blood—brain barrier where they target the diseased cells. Although a lot of people are being cured using this method of “drug-delivery”, there are some severe health risks that were not foreseen 10 years ago. Since nanoparticles aren’t easily degraded they tend to stay on once their “work is done”. As a result there is a risk that they may end up harming healthy parts of the brain. A tragedy recently occurred in a large city hospital when 20 patients received severe brain inflammation and 5 died from this kind of treatment. Many blame the incident on the hospital for their careless application of the method, while others claim that one already should have stopped this kind of treatment to avoid the potential of serious side effects.

In another area of medicine one, nowadays, no longer has to rely on organ donors for replacement of malfunctioning organs. Instead one can engineer a biodegradable scaffold that allows for the regeneration of damaged tissue or the growth of donor cells. Not only can one now grow new skin, bone, muscles but also some organs such as kidneys. Aside from the method being used to repair damage and cure various diseases, it is becoming increasingly popular in other areas. For instance, these implants are also used for cosmetic purposes and muscle tissue implants have become accepted amongst athletes. Although some governments are considering prohibiting such “non-therapeutic“ treatment, there is currently no legal restriction in this area.

Similarly neurological implants has proven efficient for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Another possibility is the through nanobiotechnology improved biochip that works as an artificial hippocampus. As the hippocampus plays a key role in creating new memories, with this new technique one is able to restore the memory capacity of Alzheimer’s patients. Since this technique seems to boost the memory in general, people with normally functioning memory are also beginning to have these implants inserted into their brain. Although the use is still not widespread, several cases are known where employers have paid for implants for those employees whose work tasks set high demands on intelligence and performance. One of the main worries is that because the treatment is so expensive, it will give rise to a new and serious inequality, namely between those who can afford this kind of “enhancing” treatment and those who cannot.

Thanks to nano-engineered biosensors we are now able to diagnose many diseases much earlier and more accurately than we could 10 years ago. Along with the development of drug-delivery and tissue implants, the average life span has increased with 10 years; going from around 80 years to 90 years! While many cherish the opportunity to live a longer life, there are problems on the socioeconomic level.

It is hard to pay for the needs of the large part of the population that is over 75. At the same time the overpopulation in urban areas is becoming increasingly difficult to deal with.

You have read a possible scenario of how the development and application of nanobiotechnology has affected life in 2020. The scenario also describes the results of certain decisions made in 2011. Our questions to you are:

• 1. What do you think of the scenarios? Which are the positive and negative aspects?

• 2. What can we learn from the scenario?

• 3. Should different decisions have been made in 2011?

Scenario C

We are at the beginning of year 2020 and Europe has since 2011 gone ahead and given top-priority to research in nanobiotechnology. Since there has been a special focus on the commercial application of nanobiotechnology, some of the main rewards have been in the area of ICT. Nanobio-sensors have created smooth and exact means for people to communicate with computers and with each other. It is now possible to connect our nervous system with external communication systems. This technique has provided paralyzed persons with highly functional artificial limbs. Similar sensors are also being used by the military where a new weapons system directly read off the electrical impulses from the soldier’s brain. So far this novel brain-computer interface system is restricted to these specialized areas, but the push is on for the technique to be used in other commercial areas. We may very soon be able to administer kitchen equipment, stereo systems, machines at our workplace and all kinds of devices “directly with our thoughts”.

Other kinds of nanobio-sensors are being used in medicine. These sensors are implants that collect information in otherwise inaccessible parts of the body while at the same time being “online” with an external computer. They can be used for monitoring blood pressure and glucose levels in people with diabetes etc. These sensors are also able to detect new diseases, for instance by tracing cancer cells. In fact, they have proven so efficient that one country has decided to implant them in all one-year-olds. The motive for doing this is of course individual health and health-care economy. However, since these devices function without our conscious awareness, many feel that they are an intrusion to our privacy. They’re concerned that those supervising the output often know more about the patient’s state of health than the patient may be willing to let them know!

Another kind of diagnostics that is dependent on nanotechnology is the so-called “Lab-on-a-chip”. It combines a sensitive chemical analysis with an interfacing computer that simultaneously evaluates the results. As a result, more and more information can be extracted from very small quantities of material. The method has been advanced to the level that it allows for a disclosure of genetic and other biological information, thereby supplying a catalogue of the diseases one is likely to develop. Although it is not required for patients to be informed of all details, many feel the social pressure (and responsibility) to find out about all conditions that will affect their future state of health. The common use of this technology in screening job applicants, has given rise to heated debate in several European countries.

Nanobiotechnology has also allowed for a new kind of surveillance since the tracking devices can be made at such a scale that they are impossible to detect. Military secret service has succeeded in attaching nanoscale GPS-tracking devices to different individuals, thereby locating the exact position of potential terrorists. There have also been several stories recently in the news about private persons who use this technique to track the whereabouts of their partner. The simple fact that these devices are so extremely small and discrete makes it impossible for someone to find out if he or she is under surveillance.

You have read a possible scenario of how the development and application of nanobiotechnology has affected life in 2020. The scenario also describes the results of certain decisions made in 2011. Our questions to you are:

• 1. What do you think of the scenario?

• 2. Which are the positive and negative aspects?

• 3. What can we learn from the scenario? Should different decisions have been made in 2011?

Appendix 2: Exercise and questions for phase 2

During phase 1 all of you were given the same situation that was described in year 2011. Then the different groups followed different courses of development until year 2020. Each of you should give a brief account of the discussion and the conclusions that were drawn in your former groups.

Now we ask you to discuss two questions, similar to the ones you were given in phase 1. This time we would like you to jot down your answers for the final phase where you will give a brief presentation of your conclusions.

• 1. What can we learn from the scenarios?

• 2. What decisions should have been made in 2011?

Appendix 3: Individual questionnaire

• 1. What advice would you like to give to decision-makers who in the near future will decide about the future of nanobiotechnology?

• 2. Which scenario group did you take part in? A B C

• 3. What, if any, impact did the discussion in the second group (phase 2) have on your opinion of nanobiotechnology?

• 4. What is your opinion about these seminars as a means to facilitate decisions about future technological developments?