SGR response to Royal Society/ Royal Academy of Engineering consultation on nanotechnology

SGR expresses concern that nanotechnology is being developed under narrow economic and military drivers, risking inadequate examination of its social and environmental implications. The organization argues that the diversity of the field makes a single label misleading and suggests that approximately 30% of investment in emerging technologies should be dedicated to examining wider implications to prevent irreversible damage.

• SGR argues that applying a single label to nanotechnology is counter-productive because the field is diverse, spanning physics, engineering, and medicine. This homogeneity can mislead policy-makers and the public, potentially causing specific risks like nanoparticle toxicity to be overlooked due to perceived economic benefits, or causing benefits to be lost due to fears of scenarios like 'grey goo'.
• The development of nanotechnology is perceived by SGR to be driven by military and economic interests rather than social or environmental goals. Evidence cited includes the US Department of Defense being the second largest recipient of US Government funding for nanotechnology and a projected global market value of up to $1 trillion by 2015.
• SGR criticizes the low level of funding for examining the ethical, social, and environmental dimensions of nanotechnology. Citing an estimate from the European Commission's research programme coordinator that only about 5% of funding is used for such examinations, SGR proposes that approximately 30% of investment in emerging technologies should be devoted to these wider implications to avoid major and irreversible damage.
• SGR warns that nanotechnology could lead to a diversion of funding away from alternative non-technological or intermediate technological solutions, similar to how the UK Government has spent 30 times more on GM agriculture R&D than on organic farming.

APA

Scientists for Global Responsibility (2003). SGR response to Royal Society/ Royal Academy of Engineering consultation on nanotechnology. https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nanotechnology-sgr-concerns

Chicago

Scientists for Global Responsibility. SGR response to Royal Society/ Royal Academy of Engineering consultation on nanotechnology. 2003. https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nanotechnology-sgr-concerns.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Scientists for Global Responsibility |title=SGR response to Royal Society/ Royal Academy of Engineering consultation on nanotechnology |date=10 July 2003 |url=https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nanotechnology-sgr-concerns |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{scientistsforglobalresponsibility2003sgr, author = {{Scientists for Global Responsibility}}, title = {{SGR response to Royal Society/ Royal Academy of Engineering consultation on nanotechnology}}, publisher = {Scientists for Global Responsibility}, year = {2003}, month = jul, url = {https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nanotechnology-sgr-concerns}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }