The cheerleading over, Swiss media view Nanofair with skeptical eye

Click here to enlarge image

ST. GALLEN, Switzerland, Sept. 17, 2003 — The Swiss media not only devoted scant coverage to the country’s first-ever Nanofair last week, the little reporting there was focused primarily on nanotech’s potential negatives.

The reaction seemed surprising, considering the event was deemed a success by organizers and participants alike, attracting some 135 firms and 4,500 visitors, a healthy turnout for a regional fair here.

But in Switzerland, as elsewhere, nanotech’s honeymoon appears to have ended. Gone are the fantastic tales of nanotechnology’s promise, replaced instead by dark fears of what nanoparticles might do to humans and the environment. Ever since late last year, when activist groups like ETC, Greenpeace and GeneWatch began calling for a moratorium on nanoparticle research until safety guidelines can be established, the media worldwide have picked up and ran with the “dark side of nano” story.

Click here to enlarge image

A preshow article, titled “Aggressive Dwarves,” in the St. Galler Tagblatt newspaper explained the call for a moratorium by Canada’s ETC Group, highlighting what it described as the potential risks of nanoparticles in sunscreen.

Another article, “The Nanotechnology Bubble,” in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung goes further. It downplays Swiss nanotech milestones, such as the invention of the scanning tunneling microscope by Gerd Binning of IBM Zurich Research Laboratory in 1988, then spends some time discussing the current nano backlash. The article says that academics and scientists have only themselves to blame for touting the potential of nanotechnology, which ignited the imagination of nanotech’s detractors.

“It is the extravagant claims of the researchers that caused the reaction,” the paper said. In the same paragraph, the report calls environmentalists “naive” and says they have fallen “prey to doomsday scenarios” penned by fiction writers, such as Michael Crichton.

The local newspaper covered the show with a story every day, the national radio did one or two broadcasts from the show, with about 50 percent of the report devoted to the risks of nanoparticles as the journalist interviewed Buhler AG, a company trying to get into the coatings business.

A weekly business magazine, CASH, published a positive article, with only about a quarter dedicated to risks. The major German newspapers did not send any journalists, nor did the two top Swiss French-speaking newspapers.

Unknown risks and threats of moratoriums aside, one thing everyone agrees on here is that there is a shortage of research on the impact of nanomaterials on human cells.

“There are some valid concerns being raised and criticism is a healthy thing,” said Nanofair organizer David Ziltener. He said that public concerns need to be voiced and further research undertaken to better understand nanopowders and coatings.

“Too much enthusiasm could blind us to things that need to be addressed,” Ziltener said.

The need for more exchange of information is being championed by Christoph Meili of Risiko-Dialog, a spinout of the University of St. Gallen. When Meili invited the press to a briefing this past summer, presentation were given by experts from EMPA, the Swiss standards and testing research institute; an ethics professors and Meili, who talked about the hype, risks and hysteria surrounding the field.

He said all “stakeholders” have to participate in a dialogue because Switzerland shows signs of becoming what he called a “moratorium society” and warned against a “prohibitive regulatory” environment.

Meili said that it is important to avoid what almost happened in a previous controversy over genetically modified corn. A few years ago, a law almost passed in Switzerland that would have made the suppliers and vendors of genetically modified corn seed liable for environmental and health damages for up to 30 years. Showing Swiss pragmatism, Meili said, “This would have made the sector uninsurable.”

Meili’s goal is to offer his foundation as a “neutral organization to organize a stakeholder platform.” That would mean getting researchers, manufacturers, regulators and insurers all together.

Meanwhile environmental research is continuing. Professor Hans-Joachim Güntherodt of the University of Basel, a strong proponent of nanotechnology in Switzerland, points to two recently granted projects: One by the Technology Assessment Bureau of Switzerland to study the impact of nanotechnology in medical technologies, and another at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology at Lausanne to study the health effects of carbon nanotubes.

POST A COMMENT

Easily post a comment below using your Linkedin, Twitter, Google or Facebook account. Comments won't automatically be posted to your social media accounts unless you select to share.