Ian Pearson - Nanotechnologies - Which? Conference

The inventor Charles Babbage - credited with the design of the first mechanical computer in the nineteenth century - once said: 'The public, who consume the new commodity or profit by the new invention, are much better judges of its merit than the government can be.' As Babbage's other accomplishments include still-ubiquitous inventions such as the ophthalmoscope and some say the standard railway gauge, he was clearly well-placed to comment.

Two centuries later, Which? has taken Babbage's principle a stage further. Which? is a powerful voice and lobby for informed consumerism, and a fitting host for today's conference.

Of course, the principles of informed consumerism are not new - in 1963 John F Kennedy famously presented them to Congress in the form of a bill of rights.

His speech set out consumer rights to which we still aspire today: the right to be safe, the right to choose freely, the right to be heard, the right to be informed and the right to education - giving information to help consumers make better decisions.

Kennedy also noted that the march of technology offers great benefits to the consumer, but makes their role more complex. This is certainly true for nanotechnology.

Nanotechnologies offer potentially huge benefits to society, industry, the environment and health. They can help us improve our quality of life and respond to some of the big issues that we face in the 21st Century - such as climate change, world poverty and disease. They can help us have better lives, as we lead longer lives.

For anyone who saw the BBC documentary series 'Visions of the Future', nanotechnologies can bring to mind fantastical concepts - unsmashable cars, uncollapsable buildings, ultra-light jet planes. Michio Kaku's analogy on the strength of nano-carbon tubes is that you could re-build the Brooklyn Bridge with indestructible fibres thinner than hairs.

Those notions may or may not come to pass, but for now you are more likely to find nanotechnologies in the form of - for instance - antimicrobial dressings for wounds, graffiti-resistant paint on walls or fire-resistant coatings on clothing. Or - as I discovered recently when I visited Teer Coatings - machine tool coatings, coatings on the lenses of your glasses to keep them clean and also coatings used to mint coins.

The UK nanotechnologies industry contributes £23 billion to the economy. And yet over 60% of people in the UK have never even heard of nanotechnology.

That is something I want to change. Some of the issues I've mentioned and where nanotechnologies could potentially have a massive impact are among the largest political questions that we face. And we will need to be able to answer them together, as a democratic society.

So we need an effort on the part of scientists to find platforms to explain clearly what nanotechnology is, how it works and where it could lead. And willingness on the part of the public is required, to share their views with scientists.

Nanotechnologies may be technically complex, but their potential effect on our lives is too important for them to be discussed among scientists and no one else.

That's all the more so because, while nanotechnologies could produce great benefits for society, their irresponsible development could also do great harm. This becomes an ethical as well as a scientific question, and the public's voice should be heard in answering it.

We must all work together to get those discussions going - from government and research councils to industry, the third sector and the media. The government has already made a good start on this - we learnt a lot from the Nanodialogues exercise, which brought together members of the public with scientists and others with detailed knowledge of nanotechnologies for in-depth discussions. I'm glad to see that others are now picking up the baton.

Science and Society - Public dialogue

When DIUS was created last June, we realised a key part of our mission as a department is to get people in this country excited about science. I want them to really value the importance of science to our economic and social well-being and to feel confident that it is being used well.

We want enthusiasm for and understanding of science to be ingrained at every level of society and at every age. Research shows that there is an increasing appetite for information on science in this country, I think that can only be a positive thing.

My colleague John Denham, the Secretary of State, describes it as need to develop a mature relationship between science, policy and society - one with a shared scientific literacy. One where the public are interested in science and know where to go if they need more information.

One of the ways we are contributing to this is through 'Sciencewise' - a programme we set up to help people have their views heard by policymakers on emerging areas of science & technology. Sciencewise has three main aims: to facilitate dialogues with the public on a range of scientific issues; to gather examples of where this has worked well; and to make sure that taking part in this type of two-way conversation becomes part of the normal everyday process of policy-making in the UK.

As part of our broader drive to engage the public in dialogue about the role of science in society, we must do two things. First, we need to understand public aspirations and concerns surrounding nanotechnology and other advances in science, so that we can identify what the wider benefits to society might be. And second, we need to act on them - for example by identifying risks and regulating appropriately.

As Nick mentioned, situations like the one that arose with MMR illustrate the dangers of poor communication. Unfounded concerns led many parents to reject the vaccines, and increased the risk to their and other people's education.

This scenario could have been avoided, through editors focussing on the science behind the story, parents able to take a more informed and sceptical view and therefore being able to see the wider picture.

Research underpins innovation and development and it also underpins understanding and management of risk. That's why we're putting a lot of money into building a strong research base. Innovations in nanotechnologies are increasingly being recognised as having the potential to make radical improvements on a truly global scale.

To give just a few examples, Nanotechnologies could help reduce our carbon footprint with better insulation, affordable solar panels and hydrogen-powered vehicles; they could purify water more cheaply, making it safer to drink in developing countries. And there's vast potential for creating non-invasive devices that can detect diseases such as cancer at an early stage.

That's why the Research Councils are jointly funding a cross-council programme. This will provide an additional £50 million in areas where the UK nanotechnologies research base can make a significant impact on issues of societal importance such as energy and ageing and look into health and safety issues too. This is on top of the £862m funding for the digital economy, energy and ageing that the research councils announced in December. Some of which will also be used for investigative research.

Oxonica

Some of this innovative technology has already arrived. Oxonica, a spin-out company from Oxford University and a leading international nanomaterials group, has created a nanocatalyst for diesel engines. This reduces fuel consumption by 5-10% and reduces particulate emissions by up to 15%. The product has already been adopted by Stagecoach Group in the UK.

We want to encourage more university spin-out companies like Oxonica. And we want more UK businesses to 'pull-through' the ideas generated by the research base. Succeeding in both of these areas is crucial for generating wealth and thriving in the Global economy.

International Collaboration

I agree totally with Which, that innovation cannot succeed without an appropriate regulatory framework to deal with risks. The work needed to understand the risks and to regulate nanotechnologies is beyond the capability of any one country.

Working together with other countries allows us to take advantage of international innovation and new products. Assuring common standards and health and safety practices will allow us to trade nano-products between countries.

International collaboration is therefore essential and that's why I am pleased to see that today we have representation from the OECD and the European Commission.

I am proud that - as the Council for Science and Technology recognised in their 2007 report - the UK is playing a significant role in ensuring international agreement on the research needed to understand the potential risks and how they might be managed.

We are working closely with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (the OECD) to share our experience and benchmark ourselves against the best in the world. In particular, we have been leading work to define what we mean by nanomaterials and how they should be measured, as well as helping to establish ways of sharing information about the research that we need and the results that we have.

3.4 billion euros of funding is available from the European Union for nanotechnologies research. During our UK Presidency, we oversaw the development of the key objectives for this work, and we continue to play an active role in steering the direction of the research work programmes. This funding provides researchers with exciting opportunities and I hope that the UK takes full advantage of the potential benefits.

To ensure that the research we fund benefits the UK, there is much collaboration across Government and the Research Councils and - I'm happy to report - a helpful blurring of the traditional lines of responsibility.

For example, the Technology Strategy Board recognises that innovation can only succeed if it takes account of the wider culture, rather than focusing strictly on development opportunities. When they publish their nanotechnologies strategy later in the year, I expect it to recognise the need for transparency and open debate as well as the importance of public expectations and concerns about health, safety and the environment.

Statement on Nanotechnologies

One of the strong messages that has come from the public dialogue on science is that people want to know who is funding what and why. This is something that they clearly have a right to know.

It's also clear that the public have a strong interest in science and technologies that could have a direct impact on their lives and, indeed, could go on to benefit all of us - both in this country and abroad. Our ability to facilitate genuine public dialogue and debate will be a measure of our success.

Today I would like to confirm our commitment to keep nanotechnology as a Government priority. The impact of nanotechnologies development cuts across a number of government departments - from my own department - Innovation, Universities and Skills to the department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) to the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) , Department of Health and more.

That's why we have set up a Ministerial group to maintain momentum and ensure we look at the whole picture, as we progress. Our first order of business has been to produce a Government statement on nanotechnologies, which I am publishing today.

This statement commits us to being open and transparent and to helping the country to derive maximum benefit from emerging technologies. But we also acknowledge that we must consistently address the aspirations and concerns of the public and safeguard health, safety and the environment.

By fulfilling these commitments, we can all benefit from the dazzling developments that potentially come from nanotechnologies. I welcome Which?'s work to facilitate public dialogue and debate. It only remains for me to wish you an enjoyable and successful conference. I'm happy to take questions and look forward to hearing the outcomes of your discussion sessions. Thanks.