ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

WE HUMANS have never excelled in planning the path of progress. We tend to adopt new technology as soon as it comes along, then wait to discover the consequences. Then, after problems have cropped up, we search for another, more benign technology to eliminate the problems created by the first. Sulphurless fuels are helping to eradicate the acid rain caused by burning fossil fuels. The damage done by DDT and PCBs deployed 50 years ago is slowly being reduced by replacing them with less persistent and less toxic alternatives. Do we always have to blunder along like this?

The environmental groups we know today were born out of disquiet caused by the technologies of the late 20th century. They championed issues such acid rain, ozone depletion and toxic chemicals, often through dramatic direct action, bringing them to public awareness and forcing governments to take them seriously. It is a testament to their success that these public campaigns have largely faded in the new millennium.

But in Europe – and particularly in the UK – something else is emerging. The debate over genetically modified crops was not about an existing technology but one that agribiotech companies wanted to introduce and governments seemed happy to nod through. But before that could happen, environmental groups asked new questions: what are the health and environmental risks likely to be, and what are the likely benefits for consumers? This caught both companies and governments on the wrong foot. The answers did not exist because no one had done the research. Only after a public outcry did anyone get round to it – only to discover that existing GM crops had no great benefit to consumers, were economically suspect and that their environmental impacts were mixed.

It is no coincidence that much of this debate took place in the UK. It came in the aftermath of the BSE crisis, in which government scientists and ministers misinformed the public about the risks of mad cow disease to human health. Faced with a doubting public, the government’s only option was to do more research, model the potential of GM crops and lay out all the facts – which turned out to be a first-rate way of assessing a new technology.

So we come to nanotechnology, about which there is also disquiet. The same questions are being asked of it as were asked of GM crops, and once again the answers are not there. The alarm, raised by Prince Charles of all people, prompted the government to commission a report from the Royal Society. That report, while acknowledging the vast potential of nanotechnology, contains recommendations that show how little we really know about its possible hazards.

They include the following: that more research is needed on the health and environmental impacts of nanoparticles; that nanoparticles should be regarded as new substances in national and European safety legislation; that their release should be limited until more is known; and that companies should publish their safety data on nanoparticles. Finally, the report advises the British government to start a discussion with the public before views about nanotech become polarised and entrenched.

On this last point at least, the government has heard the call. This week, science minister David Sainsbury announced £1.2 million in grants to schemes designed to improve dialogue with the public not only on nanotech but also on brain research, AI and other areas. The other recommendations pose trickier problems. If the UK alone demands extensive safety testing and environmental modelling from companies that want to sell new technologies, those companies will take their development work elsewhere.

But using international competition as an excuse for carrying on regardless is not an option. Instead the UK alone should seize the opportunity to convince governments and industries in Europe, and the other OECD nations, to follow suit. In a world where many technologies are introduced by multinational companies that exist outside the control of any one government, and where those technologies can quickly spread worldwide, hazards are likely to be appear quickly and globally. Modelling the potential hazards of new technologies is the only way to go. We cannot carry on ignorantly lurching from one mess to the next.