Nanotechnology: Learning communications lessons from techno-disasters

Companies utilising nanotechnology can learn from the mistakes of the past, argues Hilary Sutcliffe

Nanotechnology requires careful communication

In Australia there appears to be a growing backlash from scientists and farmers against a recent Greenpeace campaign trashing genetically modified (GM) crops.

The green group have been accused of jeopardising lives by interrupting valuable research into disease resistant plants.

Mark Lynas’ controversial book ‘http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Species-Planet-Survive-Humans/dp/000731342X">The God Species’ has also now been published, which explores what he calls nine “Planetary Boundaries”. Lynas concludes that GM is an essential part of the mix to help us feed the planet sustainably.

The scientists I speak to have always felt the ban on GM was a nonsensical and self-defeating strategy.

Has the technology’s time come again in Europe?

If so, how do companies promoting the idea convince customer that it is safe?

What lessons can we learn from that failed introduction a decade ago, for other technologies?

At Matter, a UK based think tank, we’ve been looking at this issue in more depth in relation to nanotechnology...

Please login to view the whole article - or subscribe here

For a free two week trial to Ethical Corporation online, please click here.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the code without spaces and pay attention to upper/lower case.