Public Debate on Nanotechnologies (in France) E. Gaffet CNRS / NanoMaterials Research Group (Belfort)
[email protected]
16 Novembre 2010
► i) Public Debate (DP) motivations / origins ii) DP Preparation iii) DP schedule iv) DP conclusions v) DP perspectives, Post DP
Source : Le Monde – 3 Juin 2006
Discours du Premier ministre donné pour la clôture des Etats généraux des entreprises et du développement durable au Ministère de l’Ecologie le 31 mai 2006 Le développement durable concerne enfin chaque Français. Nous devons associer davantage l’ensemble de nos concitoyens aux grands choix de société qui sont devant nous. Pour cela, nous devons recourir beaucoup plus largement à de grands débats publics nationaux, qui sont l’occasion de confronter les points de vue des experts et les attentes des citoyens. […] C’est ce que nous voulons faire aujourd’hui pour les nanotechnologies. Alors que les perspectives dans ce domaine sont extrêmement prometteuses, des inquiétudes s’expriment en France comme à l’étranger. Je demande à François LOOS et
François GOULARD de lancer sans attendre un grand débat national sur les enjeux et les opportunités des nanotechnologies http://www.cawa.fr/discours-du-premier-ministre-donne-pour-la-cloture-des-etats-generauxdes-entreprises-et-du-developpement-durable-article00180.html
31 Mai 2006 Premier Ministre clôture des Etats généraux des entreprises et du développement durable MEDD ….. Lancement d’un débat public national sur les nanotechnologies …. (http://www.cawa.fr/discours-du-premier-ministre-donne-pour-la-cloture-des-etatsgeneraux-des-entreprises-et-du-developpement-durable-article00180.html) 19 Octobre 2006 Séminaire Inter – Ministériel Enjeux et Risques liés aux NanoTechnologies / NanoMatériaux 7 Novembre 2006 Office Parlementaire d’Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques (OPECST) - Audition Publique ouverte à la Presse Les Nanotechnologies : Gestion des risques et Questions éthiques 28 Novembre 2006 1ères Rencontres Parlementaires sur les Nanotechnologies Développer les nanotechnologies : quelles perspectives pour l’avenir Juin 2008 Rapport Conseil Economique & Social I - ACCROÎTRE L’EFFORT DE RECHERCHE ET D’INVESTISSEMENT DES ENTREPRISES II - UNE DÉMARCHE DE PRÉVENTION DES RISQUES III - LES ENJEUX DE LA NORMALISATION
--------------------------------France : CPP (2006), AFSSET (2006), CNE-CNRS (2007), CCNE (2007)
Research
Health
Agriculture
Workplace
Environn.
Industry / Finance
M. Moslonka – Lefebvre, M. Gonzalez, K.-Y. Lee, M. Lee, N. Oki, F. Rodriguez, P. Kearns Pathologie de l’Environnement et Professionnelle (2009)
Establishing State of Knowledge Product Inventory, HSE questions
R. OWEN, M. CRANE, R. HANDY, I. LINKOV, M. DEPLEDGE - I. Linkov and J. Steevens (eds.), Nanomaterials: Risks and Benefits, 369 - Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009
DP : Avoid to loose Public’s Confidence Critical Period ▼
Lkapustka S. Chan-Remillard, S. Goudey, I. Linkov and J. Steevens (eds.), Nanomaterials: Risks and Benefits, 149 Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009 (Proc. NATO Conf.)
i) Public Debate (DP) motivations / origins
► ii) DP Preparation iii) DP schedule iv) DP conclusions v) DP perspectives, Post DP
Environment Grenelle II Meeting 23 February 2009 – ► Mandate Letter / 8 Ministers & State Secretary ▼ CNDP (Commission Nationale du Débat Public) National Commission on Public Debate DP Purpose : General Options on Development & Regulation of NanoTechnologies
Mandate Letter / 8 ministers – 23 Feb. 2009 DP should help shed light on the broad guidelines of the State action in the following areas: ● Terms of support for research and nano technology innovations ● Characterization of exposure & assessment of toxicity to humans & ecosystems ● Information and protection of employees in the workplace ● Information and consumer protection ● Control and monitoring organization, governance (extract from the letter of referral)
Environment
Education/Research
Economy
Defense
Workplace
Health
Agriculture
Sustainable Dvpt
Environment Grenelle II Meeting 23 February 2009 – Mandate Letter / 8 ministers ▼ ► CNDP (Commission Nationale du Débat Public) National Commission on Public Debate DP Purpose : General Options on Development & Regulation of NanoTechnologies
CNDP (Commission Nationale du Débat Public) National Commission on Public Debate CNDP - 3 mars 2009 Agreement to organise DP on Nanotechnologies ►Creation of the Particular Commission on Nanotechnologies(CPDP)
J. Bergougnoux (The Boss)
J. Arnould M. Pittet
G. Cohu JP Chaussade
I. Jarry
P. Legrand
CPDP (Commission Particulière du Débat Public) Particular Commission on Public Debate Independence and neutrality of the CPDP “We are independent both of the contracting authority and all other actors in the debate. We have been selected and appointed by the CNDP, authority independent responsibility to organise public debates. We are personally committed to comply with the strict ethics of public debate. About our neutrality, you might have appreciate seeing the efforts we have made for all the opinions on the subject of the debate could speak.
CPDP « Shadow » Support Group Jean-Luc Pujol (INRA) - Leader Eric Gaffet (CNRS) Stéphanie Lacour (CNRS) Jean-François Molle (Independant Consultant, Agri-Food) Monette Vacquin (Psychanalist)
Permanent and Active Scientific, Technological and Societal Watches Actualisation and CPDP Knowledge Improvement / Formation
Environment Grenelle II Meeting 23 February 2009 – Mandate Letter / 8 ministers ▼ CNDP (Commission Nationale du Débat Public) National Commission on Public Debate ► DP Purpose : General Options on Development & Regulation of NanoTechnologies
CNDP in listening position ● DP to French State ● To lighten wide orientations of State Action ● Research & Innovation Support Modalities ● Characterisation / Evaluation Toxicity & EcoToxicity ● Information and protection / worker & workplace ● Information and protection of Consumer ● Governance control (organisation and watch) (extract from mandate letter)
CNDP Not supposed & Not asked to promote any project ! (objectivity, transparency, confidence)
CPDP : Maximizing the widening of the Nano DP
NanoSciences / NanoTechnologies Present and Futures Applications (even « Futurists » ones): Points of view : scientific, technical, industrial, economic, today life, health and environmental risks, ethical and societal, régulations / laws , governance…
i) Public Debate (DP) motivations / origins ii) DP Preparation
► iii) DP schedule iv) DP conclusions v) DP perspectives, Post DP
Organisation & DP Schedule April 2009 to September 2009 NanoDP preparation 23rd September 2009 Press Conference 15th October 2009 1st Public Meeting in Strasbourg 23rd February 2010 17th Meeting in Paris (Closing Meeting) 24th February 2010 Closure of DP on Nanotechnologies 13th April 2010 Public DP report by the CPDP President & Public DP Report CNDP President And State Answer ??
CPDP « Official » Documents
Stakeholder Contributions 51 Notebook Actors / 51 Cahiers d’Acteurs GNO (Consumer, Research, Environmental) Association Sciences et Démocratie - 11/02/2010 / Association Française Transhumaniste -28/01/2010 / ORDIMIP 11/12/2009 / SEPANSO - 25/11/2009 / INC - 25/11/2009 / FIDEA - 24/11/2009 / Fondation Sciences Citoyennes 06/11/2009 / APPA - 30/10/2009 / Forum Mondial Sciences et Démocratie - 30/10/2009 / AFOC (CGT-FO) - 22/10/2009 / CENG - 22/10/2009 / CLCV- 15/10/2009 / Familles Rurales- 15/10/2009 / France Nature Environnement-15/10/2009 / INDECOSA-CGT- 15/10/2009 / Vivagora - 15/10/2009 / Les Amis de la Terre- 15/10/2009
Professionals Conseil National des Ingénieurs et des Scientifiques de France 11/02/2010 / SITELESC - 30/10/2009 / MEDEF 22/10/2009 / Académie des technologies- 15/10/2009 / Académie nationale de médecine- 15/10/2009 / Académie nationale de pharmacie- 15/10/2009 / ANIA- 15/10/2009 / EPE- 15/10/2009 / FEBEA- 15/10/2009 / UIC-15/10/2009 / Leem -15/10/2009 / SFSP- 15/10/2009
Economical Stakeholders CESR RHÔNE-ALPES (11/02/2010) / CESR BRETAGNE (28/01/2010) / CESR Franche Comté (24/11/2009)/ CESE15/10/2009 / Conseil Régional d'Ile-de-France- 15/10/2009
Safety Agencies / Research Organisms AFSSA (06/01/2010) / INERIS - 22/10/2009 / INRIA 06/11/2009 / AFNOR- 15/10/2009 AFSSET- 15/10/2009 / CNIL- 15/10/2009 /CNRS – CEA- 15/10/2009/ INRS - 15/10/2009/ INSERM-15/10/2009 / IReSP15/10/2009
Worker Unions FORCE OUVRIERE -11/01/2010 / CFE – CGC (24/11/2009) / UNSA (06/11/2009) / CFDT- 15/10/2009 / CFTC15/10/2009
Political LES VERTS (26/10/2009)
European Governance Medical Applications Nanotechnologies & Environment Protection Cosmetics Nanotechnologies & Consumer Protection Industrial Processes Nanotechnologies & Workplace Safety Nanoparticles & Atmospheric Pollution
Nanotechnologies & Textiles Nanotechnologies & Competitivity Informatics & Individual Liberty NanoMedecine
Buildings Materials & other uses Buildings & Energy
Nanotechnologies & Food Safety Medical Applications NanoToxicity National Defence & Homeland Security Research & Industrial Development NBIC Convergence Ethics & Governance Ethics & Governance
Closing Meeting
No Nano Debate Demonstration
European Governance
Disturbed
Medical Applications Nanotechnologies & Environment Protection Cosmetics Nanotechnologies & Consumer Protection Industrial Processes Nanotechnologies & Workplace Safety Nanoparticles & Atmospheric Pollution
Nanotechnologies & Textiles Disturbed
Nanotechnologies & Competitivity Informatics & Individual Liberty NanoMedecine Cancelled
Necessity to Secure Public Debate Buildings Materials & other uses
Control of identity, personal bag
Buildings & Energy
Nanotechnologies & Food Safety Tentative
Tentative
Medical Applications NanoToxicity National Defense & Homeland Security
Tentative
Cancelled
Research & Industrial Development NBIC Convergence ◄ Debate : Expert Panel + Internet et Phone Call
Ethics & Governance Cancelled
◄ Debate : Expert Panel + Internet et Phone Call
Ethics & Governance Cancelled
Closing Meeting « Public » on Invitation (only) !!
The Debate in debate To be or not be in the debate "Participate, is accepting" (“Activist” Position) "Participate, is willing to defend his ideas" (CPDP) Decide not to participate is an attitude respectable but unfortunate because it means that it has no confidence in the democratic approach of public debate (“participative democraty”) Disturbance / Pertubation Disturbance of a public debate is not an exceptional phenomenon: "serene public debate is a debate without fame and without visible issue." As this has been the case in this debate, they attempt to interfere with the free expression of the citizens. It is a serious violation of democracy … Essential for other For whom who have requested the debate within the framework of round table on the environment, consider, instead, that great deal remains to be and that this exercise of participative democracy arrives at time and will be very useful to inform decisions important to take For the CPDP animate this debate is at this moment, a leap of faith. We can judge its usefulness to the impact that this will have on future decisions.
A useless debate for some…. The legitimacy of the debate and, more importantly, its usefulness have been challenged by some players in the debate: "there are already more than 1,000 products on the market, this debate comes too late“ - "all decisions are already taken, this debate is an operation of communication, even of propaganda", etc
… Very Usefull for others The Maitre d’Ouvrage and those who have asked this debate in the context of Grenelle II round table, consider on the contrary : • Debate remains heavily to exercise of participative democracy on time • Very useful for illuminating important decisions still to take
Low physical participation to the "general public"... • Physical participation in meetings (3216 participants) was well below the expectations of the organizers • The disturbances does not explain everything • Attendance website debate (nearly 200 000 visits to date) is more satisfactory but the number of comments (263) and contributions (75) on the site remained relatively modest
…but benefits Media important • More than 1200 benefits media (TV/radio, press, web) • The press national newspapers (daily press) regional weekly newspapers, specialist press) spent nanotechnologies and their substantive articles applications • "After the debate, they speak nanotechnology otherwise. You can see right now.“ (Philippe Deslandes, President of the CNDP)
i) Public Debate (DP) motivations / origins ii) DP Preparation iii) DP schedule
► iv) DP conclusions Nanomaterials & nanostructured materials daily life Acquisition, transmission, storage, information processing Medical applications
v) DP perspectives, Post DP A very rich material • 900 pages of verbatim • 51 notebooks actor reflecting a range opinions very varied • 661 questions and answers • 75 substantial contributions on site
Global governance deficit • A new very powerful technology, opening up potential considerable but entailing risks still insufficiently identified • Led too exclusively, global development at the eyes of many "market forces". • A global governance and regulatory plans deficit in European and national levels "In an absent regulatory environment, nanotechnologies.“ developed without public debate, leaving the field open to the industry and researchers. “ (The friends of the Earth, actor book)
European and national regulations
• Rapid development of regulations well suited to the nanotechnology and imposing on European space is absolutely necessary • If the cosmetic regulations is hailed as an advanced interesting, many are those who consider the explicit taking into account nanotechnology in regulation Reach became an urgency. • “Eurocompatibility" decisions which may take the France is a delicate matter.
The question of a Moratorium (& which one ?) Is a global moratorium possible? Yes Friends of the Earth considering uncertainty of any nature affecting the development of nanotechnology, pronounce a general moratorium on non- only all applications of nanotechnology (y) including medical applications, "Trojan horse for Nanotechnology" (Mrs Freyssinet in Toulouse)) but also research.
Is a global moratorium possible? No • This globalizing position is generally seen as unrealistic, or even dangerous. In particular, it was noted that the ignorance that result of the judgment of the research, we expose about severe dangers facing a world where the Nanotechnology will continue whatever our decisions will develop. • Many stakeholders are shown convinced that it cannot be part of the follow-up data to the debate by the public authorities.
i) Public Debate (DP) motivations / origins ii) DP Preparation iii) DP schedule iv) DP conclusions ► Nanomaterials & nanostructured materials daily life Acquisition, transmission, storage, information processing Medical applications
v) DP perspectives, Post DP
Health & environmental risks nanomaterials - a daily basis • health risks & for the environment was pervasive throughout the debate • usefulness (or "futility") of applications has gradually emerged • development of applications "goes too fast“-> risk management is inadequate
Toxicology and ecotoxicology • Toxicity / ecotoxicity (!!) are still very difficult to quantifiable. • Opinion that prevailed during the debate is that toxicology ecotoxicology of nanomaterials and parents poor public research and that there is an imbalance caught between the budgets are spent and those who support the development of applications
Hazards, risks, prevention • the risk is the "product" of the danger by the exhibition • face particularly one prevention poorly known hazard, is to reduce exposure to a level as low as possible
Characterization and Metrology • Characterization of nanoparticle (the border value) (100 nanometers is not intangible) obliged to take into. There are many factors • The count in a space given nanoparticles data characteristics still requires today's heavy means what is scarcely compatible with the measures in situ necessary at the discretion of exhibits of the public and the environment • It is essential to make rapid progress in this area
The protection of workers • The recommendations of the AFSSET concerning precautions in workshops and laboratories where are manufactured or manipulated nanomaterials are not raised major objections nor the means (masks) (clothing, gloves) to protect themselves against the hazard they present (by inhalation or contact) • It was stressed the importance of internal to provisions the company to ensure that these recommendations are put in work efficiently (information, training, CHST,) occupational medicine...) • Concerns instead the activities of transformation that will use these nanomaterials. Hence requirements for traceability, records information on risks, etc…
Consumer questions The informed consumer arises or arise many issues: in my diet products hygiene in textiles that I wear, I use in the objects of my daily life, in my car in the my home, is there any nanoparticle materials likely to address a hazard? Is there any prevention measures to take? Should what products I prefer? exclude?
Traceability, labelling, information, transparency In some cases the labelling (which assumes the traceability) nanomaterials in the development chain (the product) is an early response but cannot suffice without information to interpret meaningfully. In the absence of standards providing warranties, this information that is provided by the producer or via the consumer associations, based on the transparency processes of production and placing on the market (Reine-Claude Mader -CLCV à Strasbourg)
The protection of the environment In principle, precautions are taken in laboratories and the workshops which are manufactured and manipulated nanomaterials to avoid except accident, release into the environment toxic nanoscale objects in a broad sense. The protection of the environment is therefore concerned to mainly by releases of particulate during the life cycle of materials containing nanometric objects (nanoparticles, nanoparticle aggregates, nanotubes,...) and singularly of their end of life (recycling or destruction) . Weakness of ecotoxicological knowledge . Difficulty in characterization and metrology, . Still insufficient knowledge of the mechanisms of releases related wear and tear, . Current lack of traceability of products of nanomaterials, methods of recycling and disposal recognises,... The difficulties that FNE and others would justify a moratorium for certain applications of nanotechnology.
i) Public Debate (DP) motivations / origins ii) DP Preparation iii) DP schedule iv) DP conclusions Nanomaterials & nanostructured materials daily life
► Acquisition, transmission, storage, information processing Medical applications
v) DP perspectives, Post DP • The databases • The "RFID chips. • Man-machine interface Robotics and artificial intelligence. • Individual and collective freedoms
Nanotechnologies in the acquisition, storage & processing of information Protect the individual and collective freedoms. Ensure the dignity and integrity of the human
The CNIL and Nanotechnology …. Finally the fear to the CNIL, the use of the microelectronics miniaturized, is that, firstly, a reinforced monitoring. ... We question whether prohibition some uses, especially with regard to the implant of communicating objects would be implanted inside the human body. This requires of course that is developing a suitable legislative framework. This may therefore wish to say that Parliament will have to take issue. (Gwendal Le Grand - CNIL in Orsay)
i) Public Debate (DP) motivations / origins ii) DP Preparation iii) DP schedule iv) DP conclusions Nanomaterials & nanostructured materials daily life Acquisition, transmission, storage, information processing
► Medical applications v) DP perspectives, Post DP • Assistance in medical medical monitoring and diagnosis • Surgery helps • Endoscopy • Non-invasive surgery • Treatment of the disease and neurological disabilities • "Repair" human
Is it not better prevent than cure? "Rather than cure, could we not try to prevent “ working on environmental issues? "(question (asked of Toulouse) • « .. Cancer is caused mainly by the pollution. Great doctors say or write, the Professor Belpomme or others" (Niels Triede Strasbourgl) • "The majority of cancers are not created by exposure to chemicals, contrary to the as you think. "(Jacques Grassi in Strasbourg) An area where the benefit-risk balance makes any sense "Treatment must prove that it provides for risks than benefits. No treatment is safe, even aspirin which may have a "side effects". (Patrick Boisseau in Lyon) Disease and neurological disabilities "Micro - and nanotechnology will allow processing“ diseases such as Parkinson's disease or other disorders of the same type where the implementation of electrodes stimulating specific areas of the brain will allow cure. This is done since tens of years. The "pioneers of these therapies are in Grenoble, France." (Jacques Grassi in Strasbourg)
i) Public Debate (DP) motivations / origins ii) DP preparation iii) DP schedule iv) DP conclusions ► Governance v) DP perspectives, Post DP Associate the "civil society" governance to the development of nanotechnology? • Governance: what is it? • Reflection on the objectives • Ethical coaching • Expectations of "civil society".
Governance: what is it? The General Commission for terminology and Neology defines governance : • Definition: How to design and to exercise authority in the Head of a company, an organization of a State. • Note: Governance is appreciated not only by taking into the degree of organization and efficiency, but also and especially according to criteria such as transparency, the participation and the sharing of responsibilities
Reflection on the objectives Public frequently asked about the purposes of development of nanotechnologies by taking as a point start the interest for the company for various applications ("useful" and "useless" applications) Talk of objectives, major issues (JP Bourgoin CEA) or intentions (J Mazodier) Although a shared belief that a reflection on the purposes is indispensable for any governance in particular for applied research, or even more fundamental research • Among the purposes considered generally as "valuable": understand, treat, save the scarce resources, protect the environment... • Among those often considered "suspect": improve daily life ("gadgets"), stay in the international competition (risk of forgetting ethics),... • Generally, the lack of transparency on the purposes is strongly criticized.
Ethical coaching Ethics, is searching for the answer to the question: "How live together? … The Ethics Committee embodies this decision collectively determine the criteria to guide action in a situation of uncertainty"(JM Besnier -Orsay) I might disappoint you, but it is not for really new problems with nanotechnology... They integrate all existing ethical problems amplifying them because they are more powerful than the other technologies (J Bordé - Strasbourg)
An ethical issue: human "increased". Our ethics condemns "increased human." Is it the same in all countries? The point of view of "transhumanist": "Nothing rational does claim to". any nature, including the human immutability and the world would be an integral part. The nanotechnology must be developed for as far as their use helps strengthen the likelihood of continuation of human thought. »
« THE CITIZEN SOCIETY »
Expectations of the Société Civile / Citizen Society It must be that, in the process, the public, the population are associated with the current research issues ask questions, researchers or leaders to provide explanations and if satisfactory explanations are not provided, perhaps stop on a number of works, as it has said summer in the area of life. (Mr. Olivier, CFDT) The point of view of a high-ranking official : When we talk about scenarios for the future, the freedom of thinking the world we want, there is also the question of who decides who has voice and how it organizes this successful round-trip between those carriers of the legislative, Executive and judiciary, and those who are Speakers for fragments of opinions in Society (Françoise Roure – Orsay)
Is there a specific "nano problem"... Four reasons identified during the debate: • A common substrate: nanoscience • Uncertainties: "fly in the fog" • Ethical questions and societal heavy • Adhesions and convergences
... which would justify a "nano governance." This is why some (FNE, Rhône - Alpes, CFDT, CESR…) advocate the implementation at different levels (national, regional, or local) instances advisory (or better "predecisionnal"?) to associate the various components of the society governance development and nanotechnology in the broadest sense, be considered as falling within a global problem
The superposition of governance • Global governance: the weight and stresses of ISO (international standards), but also the WTO • OECD cooperation • European governance: research programmes Community regulations, agencies, but also the principles which govern the European market • National governance • Regional and local governance : difficultie of articulation and compatibility problems that have were discussed during the debate
What can we expect from the self-regulation? • Whether or not, it regrets is now putting a product on the market that is responsible for the damages it may cause to persons and to the environment • Can The companies regulate and control everything? • The companies also have (or have) a Ethics, a true governance (Jeanne Grosclaude CFDT). Can The companies self-regulating individually or within a profession?
i) Public Debate (DP) motivations / origins ii) DP preparation iii) DP schedule iv) DP conclusions
►
v) DP perspectives, Post DP
Conclusion : The debate Course Major Observations • Complex (Scientific & Technological) Debate • A Challenged and Disturbed Debate • Low participation level of Public (100 – 250) • Significant media impact 149 759 visits on the website , 913 articles in the media 51 notebooks actor, 3 216 participants at the public meetings 655 questions, 252 views, 69 contributions Cost : 3.273.761 Euros (Source CR DP Nanotechnologies – 9 Avril 2010)
Expectations of the Public (Citizen Society) • An intense flow of information • A rich harvest of arguments and views • Public debate is only a step • How to Consolidate the Key Points of the Debate? Still (!! ) waiting for (Hoping for ??) State Conclusions ? / Decisions ? / Recommendations ? (on 16 November 2010 / End of July 2010 ?)
Do not Forget “The real utility of the debate can only be assessed in the light of its impact on future decisions” (one of the citizen representative remarks)
http://www.debatpublic-nano.org
Public Debate on Nanotechnologies Débat Public sur les Nanotechnologies “Today’s science fiction is often tomorrow’s science fact.” Stephen Hawking
Thank you for your Attention
[email protected]
Questions Discussion
Tin Whisker (Peter Bush, SUNY at Buffalo)
[email protected] 