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.

No abstract

No abstract

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 innovationwithout 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 per cent 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.

No abstract