They must understand that the ivory tower is over

How to talk of nanotechnology in France The question planera over the meeting of closure of the public debate which is taking place this evening. A strange meeting, which will take place on invitation and behind doors probably closely guarded by the police. A paradox, because the objective was to go to the meeting of the French to discuss nanotechnology to answer the questions and defuse the fears they generate. The National Commission for public debate had this programmed 16 meetings open to all in the cities of France, in the presence of representatives of ministries (health, research), consumer associations and environmental, scientific and industrial (CEA, Arkema, National Association of industries of the agri-food...). But, as these meetings, the debate eventually turn short. The fiercest opponents prevented or disrupted six meetings. A few dozen activists, including parts and labor (PMO), a collective of Grenoble very opposed to Minatec (), generated a heckling making any made speech impossible brandishing banners stating: "the nano, it is not green, it is totalitarian" or "decisions already taken, it is democracy in crisis."

The stakeholders and participants in the meetings have denounced the PMO actions, denouncing an infringement against democracy. "I understand that one may not agree, but step that it prevents the debate," insists José Cambou, the France Nature Environment Federation, which has participated in several meetings. "Break the floor, preventing public debates and information are formidable means of tyranny, not not green, but simply obscurantist", said Chantal Jouanno, Secretary of State for ecology, in une tribune published by "The world" on February 17.

Rest, for this systematic obstruction, two recent regional meetings, scheduled for February in Montpellier and Nantes, have been purely and simply cancelled. Instead, discussions were well taken place, but only in a small Committee and broadcast on the Internet (). The same device will be resumed this evening for the closing conference.

(A) that the fault

Why such difficult to discuss nanotechnology in France, so that the subject seems less passions unleashed abroad First for a problem related to education, said Alexei Grinbaum, physicist and philosopher working at the CEA: "The National Education is the great absent from this debate." We live in a world where technology is pervasive and education is essential to keep these objects we use every day are not black boxes. The gap between the available technology and knowledge has never been as great. "Second responsibility, always according to Alexei Grinbaum: that of scientists. "They must understand that the ivory tower, is over." The problem is that science has become one trade like any other, often hyperspécialisé, made by people who have more general culture and have more tools to reflect on the impact of their work on society.

The Organization of the public debate is also being challenged. First, it is long overdue. Some nanomaterials are already in our environment and the State is investing heavily with the Nano-innov plan: 70 million euros of investment last year, of which EUR 46 million for the construction of an integration centre on the site of Saclay in control of work of the ECA. It was also poorly engaged, according to the association of friends of the Earth, who chose to leave the meetings in January. "Before discussing conditions development products containing nanoparticles, it was essential that health, social, environmental and ethical issues are addressed," says the ecologist association.

Deadlock

It is true that the ethics and governance, two yet fundamental themes on a subject as sensitive as nanotechnology, were not part of the themes considered at the outset. "We have treated at each meeting, but not overall", acknowledges Jean Bergougnoux (read the interview below). They have finally been treated at the last moment (see box opposite).

Not secure finally that the National Commission of public debates, more accustomed to deal with local projects, was sufficiently equipped to oversee an issue of such magnitude. "The futility of the debate on the CNDP nanotechnology a substantive question: what is the objective". "It seems that the debate has been designed for the citizens or by them", note the philosopher Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent in a point of view published the week last in "The world", co-authored by Marie-Christine Blandin, Northern Senator and member of the parliamentary Office for evaluation of scientific and technological choices (OPECST). "Another French anomaly", art text, this parliamentary office has no mission of public debate, unlike "to most of its European counterparts". The controversy will be good. By putting the spotlight on this debate, it will have never heard nothing about nanotechnology.

Find a list

products marketed on