Nanotechnology and the Global South: Exploratory Views on Characteristics, Perceptions and Paradigms

Citation: Donald C. Maclurcan, "Nanotechnology and the Global South: Exploratory Views on Characteristics, Perceptions and Paradigms", in Arnaldi S., Lorenzet A., Russo F. (eds.), Technoscience in Progress: Managing the Uncertainty of Nanotechnology, Amsterdam, IOS Press, pp. 97-112.

In the Global North, confusion, hype and disagreement plague nanotechnology debates. In the meantime, the debate about the Global South's engagement with nanotechnology has forged ahead, assuming common understandings about what nanotechnology is and what it is not, as well as the general irrelevance of definitional debates. This despite evidence that nanotechnology is being presented in a conflicting manner in the literature, through mixed terminology and imagery, and that little has been documented about Southern understandings. Given the importance of understandings in the genetically-modified foods debate, the way nanotechnology is understood holds serious repercussions for the framing of its ethical, legal and social implications. This chapter reports on the perspectives of Thai and Australian key informants, from a broad range of fields. It seeks to explore and clarify how nanotechnology might be defined, perceived and framed in terms of the South. The results suggest that nanotechnology may be conceptualized in similar ways, focussing on near-term nanotechnology that is defined by a common set of characteristics. Yet, when it comes to the way these conceptualisations translate into applications, there may be large differences in nanotechnology's perceived scope, sophistication and complexity. This holds interesting ramifications for global nanotechnology discourse, particularly in terms of the assumed costs and infrastructure required to conduct nanotechnology research and development and the more general role the South will play in the global nanotechnology picture.

Nanotechnology’s Controversial Role for the South

Citation: Invernezzi, N., Folladori, G., Maclurcan D. (2008) “Nanotechnology’s Controversial Role for the South”, Science, Technology & Society 13(1): 123–148.

The possibility that nanotechnology will turn into an instrument to aid development or alleviate poverty has been discussed explicitly in academic circles, at meetings held by international bodies, and in non-governmental organisations since 1997. The different positions on the role that it can play in the process reflect particular interpretations of the relationship between science, technology and society.

We divide the arguments expressed in this discussion in two broad groups. One can be  identified as the instrumental position, which emphasises the technical capacity of nanotechnologies to solve poverty problems and spur development.

The other group of arguments can be identified as the contextual position by emphasising the social context wherein technology is produced, used and adapted.

We summarise and analyse the main arguments in the debate on nanotechnologies, development and poverty. We consider the most influent opinions from organisations, institutions and meetings, presenting their main ideas in chronological order. The outline covers the period from 1997 to late 2007, and reviews the documents that most directly address the issue. Afterwards, we highlight and analyse the main issues at stake in this controversy.

Southern Roles in Global Nanotechnology Innovation: Perspectives from Thailand and Australia

Citation: Maclurcan, D., “Southern Roles in Global Nanotechnology Innovation: Perspectives from Thailand and Australia”, Nanoethics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale 3(2): 137 – 156.

The term ‘nano-divide’ has become a catch-phrase for describing various kinds of global nanotechnology inequities. However, there has been little in-depth exploration as to what the global nano-divide really means, and limited commentary on its early nature. Furthermore, the literature often presents countries from the Global South as ‘passive’ agents in global nanotechnology innovation—without the ability to develop endogenous nanotechnology capabilities. Yet others point to nanotechnology providing opportunities for the South to play new roles in the global research and development process. In this paper I report on the findings of a qualitative study that involved the perspectives of 31 Thai and Australian key informants, from a broad range of fields. The study was supplemented by a survey of approximately 10% of the Thai nanotechnology research community at the time. I first explore how the global nano-divide is understood and the implication of the divide’s constructs in terms of the roles to be played by various countries in global nanotechnology innovation. I then explore the potential nature of Southern passivity and barriers and challenges facing Southern endogenous innovation, as well as an in-depth consideration of the proposition that Southern countries could be ‘active’ agents in the nanotechnology process. I argue that it is the nano-divide relating to nanotechnology research and development capabilities that is considered fundamental to nanotechnology’s Southern outcomes. The research suggests that Southern countries will encounter many of the traditional barriers to engaging with emerging technology as well as some new barriers relating to the nature of nanotechnology itself. Finally, the research suggests that nanotechnology may offer new opportunities for Southern countries to enter the global research and development picture.

Nanotechnology and Developing Countries – Part 1: What Possibilities?

Citation: Maclurcan, D. (2005) “Nanotechnology and Developing Countries – Part 1: What Possibilities?”, Online Journal of Nanotechnology.

In recent times, nanotechnology has been included in a number of the debates considering emerging technology and developing countries. However, the literature considering nanotechnology’s application to the developing world has often varied in its interpretation of what nanotechnology really is. Furthermore, despite a wide range of perspectives as to the relevance, appropriateness and potential impact of nanotechnology for developing countries, the key debates have often remained disengaged.

This paper attempts to clarify understandings of nanotechnology and synthesize discussions on issues of relevance, appropriateness and distribution with respect to developing countries. In support, recent developments in nanotechnology and healthcare are provided.

Nanotechnology and Developing Countries – Part 2: What Realities?

Citation: Maclurcan, D. (2005) “Nanotechnology and Developing Countries – Part 2: What Realities?”, Online Journal of Nanotechnology.

Drawing on search-engine data gained from combining the term ‘nano*’ with the title of every economy recognised by the World Bank, the research to be described here highlights a widespread developing country engagement with nanotechnology research and development. Subsequent investigation reveals that the orientation of developing country engagement is distant from nanotechnology’s ‘social development’ applications, often cited as most applicable to developing countries.

The ability of less-developed countries to engage with nanotechnology R&D is explored along with current mechanisms to facilitate partnerships and access to information.

The additional analysis of health-related patents confirms that the ‘nano-divide’ is already here. With China constituting the bulk of patents from the South, the divide is not just between the developed and developing world, it extends to within the developing world.

An assessment of participation in international nanotechnology policy and dialogue highlights low levels of developing country representation, supporting the overall argument that nanotechnology may be set to follow the path of past technologies in creating a greater global technological divide.

The role of nanotechnologies in development and poverty alleviation: a matter of controversy

Citation: Invernezzi, N., Folladori, G., Maclurcan D. (2007) “The role of nanotechnologies in development and poverty alleviation: a matter of controversy”, Journal of Nanotechnology Online.

Nanotechnologies promise to be the foundation of the next industrial revolution. What role can they play in abating poverty and inequity in the world? This question has been raised, directly or indirectly, by various authors and institutions since the year 2000, when nanotechnology came to be the focus of government research programs, primarily in the developed world but also in countries in the process of development.

In this article we review the positions taken by the principle institutions that addressed that question in the period 2000-2006.  We identify two main positions.  One gives importance to the technical advantages that nanotechnologies can offer to resolve key development themes, such as potable water, cheap and pollutant-free energy, and the diagnoses and treatment of health matters.  This position we call the instrumental position, as it separates technological instruments from the socio-economic context and market pressures that influence nanotechnology development, appropriation and use. The other position, which we call contextual, analyzes nanotechnologies within the framework of social, economic and political forces in which they originate and are developed. Arising out of that context, this second position questions whether new technologies can be leveraged to reduce poverty and inequity in a world that is driven by lucrative interests.

This characterization of the discussion, which at moments could seem rigid, helps to elaborate divergent concepts of the relation between science, technology and society that provide the foundation, legitimacy, or question the agendas of nanoscience and nanotechnology research.  It contributes, therefore, to facilitate the political dialogue around said agendas. After reviewing the main positions, the authors conclude that the contextual position presents strong arguments to be considered in nanotechnology's development.

The literature visited allows arguing that for nanotechnology to play a role in abating poverty and inequality it should be embraced in a range of political policies that go further than just promoting a new technology. Main poverty problems are not due to lack of technology, though a new technology will not, by its own, overcome those development problems.

Molecular manufacturing and the developing world: Looking to nanotechnology for answers

Citation: Maclurcan, D. (2006) “Molecular manufacturing and the developing world: Looking to nanotechnology for answers”, Nanotechnology Perceptions, 2(1b): 137-141.

Despite limited literature discussing the global implications of molecular manufacturing (MM), the seeds for certain key debates are starting to be sown. They essentially mirror those
presented for current and near-term nanotechnology: 1. for what purposes will the technology be developed and used, by whom will it be created and owned, what is the nature of the risks it will bring, and what kind of impact will it have upon the global economy and developing world?

The realisation of MM’s central goals would undoubtedly lead to the most concentrated technological tsunami ever witnessed. The unpredictable nature of such a revolution makes answering the previous questions all the more difficult.

However, just as biotechnology is commonly used as a yardstick for nanotechnology evaluations (given the continuity of many social concerns and the relationship between existing biotechnology capabilities and the potential to develop nanotechnology), I argue here that the best way to set up the MM debate, in terms of its impact on developing countries, may be to look at developments and trends in nanotechnology. Central to such analysis is addressing the ways in which nanotechnology creates new possibilities for developing countries in terms of access to technology, potential benefits, risks, and shifting views of science and technology, as well as the imposing of new demands in terms of infrastructure and approaches to science.

Medical Nanotechnology and Developing Nations

Citation: Maclurcan, D.C., Ford, M.J., Cortie, M.B. and Ghosh, D. (2003) “Medical Nanotechnology and Developing Nations”, Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Nanotechnology Forum 2003, World Sci. Publishing Co., Singapore, pp. 165-172.

The potential for the rapidly emerging field of nanotechnology to assist or further marginalise people in developing countries has been given little consideration.

This paper examines the possible need and application of medical nanotechnology, specifically disease diagnosis and drug delivery, in developing countries.

It is proposed that the timing may be appropriate for ‘intermediate’ medical nanotechnology to enter global health discussions. Suggestions for further research and action result from the issues raised.

The Change Starts Here

Citation: Maclurcan D. (2008) “The Change Starts Here” Social Alternatives 27(1): 64.

This is an abridged version of a talk given on Australia Day to the North Sydney Council in Sydney.

NanoTechnology in Developing Countries

Citation: Maclurcan, D. (2006) “NanoTechnology in Developing Countries” Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative Newsletter, 103: 8-15.

NanoTechnology in Developing Countries

Citation: Maclurcan, D. (2006) “NanoTechnology in Developing Countries” Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative Newsletter, 102: 16-24.

Real World Nanotechnology

Citation: Cortie, M.B., Maclurcan. D. C., Ford, M.J., Martin, D.K. (2006), “Real World Nanotechnology”, Materials Australia, 39(3): 10-12.

Not-So-Magic Nano

Citation: Maclurcan, D. and Phelps, B. (2006), “Not-So-Magic Nano”, New Matilda, Issue 87 (Apr.).

Rectifying Nanotechnology Confusion and Redirecting Focus

Citation: Maclurcan, D., Ford, M. and Cortie, M. (2004), “Rectifying Nanotechnology Confusion and Redirecting Focus”, The Physicist 41(3): 84-85.

The Confusion Surrounding Nanotechnology

Citation: Maclurcan, D., Ford, M. and Cortie, M. (2004), “The Confusion Surrounding Nanotechnology” Materials Australia 37(2): 24-25.

We are not Davos

Citation: Maclurcan, D., (2007) “We are not Davos”, New Matilda, Iss: 127 (Jan.).