Nanotechnology innovation is increasing as scientists and entrepreneurs realize the possibilities offered by the ability to manipulate particles on the nanoscale. Gradually - as discoveries made in university cleanrooms and laboratories begin to take shape as ideas for commercial products - new materials, sensors, lasers, batteries and medical diagnostics begin to reach the marketplace. The advisors that work in the innovation offices attached to the major Swedish universities have an important role in this process, as they advise scientist/entrepreneurs on how to best develop their ideas and how to find and negotiate with prospective customers and partners, or how to license their concepts. Part of their work with the prospective entrepreneurs is to assess the risk involved with each project, and to examine the innovation’s sustainability.
Assessing how a new product will affect humans and the environment is a part of such an assessment. However, little is known about how the nanoparticles in new products interact with the environment, as these particles are so novel and react differently than the materials do in bulk form. Discussions of the possible risks associated with nanotechnological products are often present in the media, and may affect the marketability of a product. While work in the laboratories springs ahead bringing startling new possibilities, regulation is slower, and lags behind, sometimes due to a lack of robust data. Thus the risk assessments made in the sphere of nanotech innovation are therefore frequently tentative: there may be no direct evidence, but only hypotheses regarding how certain particles will act, or how they may affect humans in the long term. And as the advisors themselves come from different scientific backgrounds, they have varied ideas about how to deal with possible risks.
Based upon interviews carried out in five Swedish universities, this paper will discuss how innovation advisors envisage the possible risks inherent in nanotechnological innovations, and where they believe potential dangers may lie. It also explores who they believe should shoulder the task of avoiding or mitigating risk, and where the regulatory responsibility lies.