rss

This article has a correction

Please see: J Epidemiol Community Health 2014;68:1108

J Epidemiol Community Health 68:890-895 doi:10.1136/jech-2014-204019
  • Essay

Adequate and anticipatory research on the potential hazards of emerging technologies: a case of myopia and inertia?

Open Access
  1. David Gee2
  1. 1DTU Environment, Technological University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  2. 2Science, Policy and Emerging Issues, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
  1. Correspondence to Dr Steffen Foss Hansen, DTU Environment, DTU-building 113, Technological University of Denmark, Kgs. Lyngby, DK-2800, Denmark; sfha{at}env.dtu.dk
  • Received 6 April 2014
  • Accepted 14 May 2014
  • Published Online First 9 June 2014

Abstract

History confirms that while technological innovations can bring many benefits, they can also cause much human suffering, environmental degradation and economic costs. But are we repeating history with new and emerging chemical and technological products? In preparation for volume 2 of ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings’ (European Environment Agency, 2013), two analyses were carried out to help answer this question. A bibliometric analysis of research articles in 78 environmental, health and safety (EHS) journals revealed that most focused on well-known rather than on newly emerging chemicals. We suggest that this ‘scientific inertia’ is due to the scientific requirement for high levels of proof via well replicated studies; the need to publish quickly; the use of existing intellectual and technological resources; and the conservative approach of many reviewers and research funders. The second analysis found that since 1996 the funding of EHS research represented just 0.6% of the overall funding of research and technological development (RTD). Compared with RTD funding, EHS research funding for information and communication technologies, nanotechnology and biotechnology was 0.09%, 2.3% and 4% of total research, respectively. The low EHS research ratio seems to be an unintended consequence of disparate funding decisions; technological optimism; a priori assertions of safety; collective hubris; and myopia. In light of the history of past technological risks, where EHS research was too little and too late, we suggest that it would be prudent to devote some 5–15% of RTD on EHS research to anticipate and minimise potential hazards while maximising the commercial longevity of emerging technologies.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

Open Access

Free sample

This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JECH.
View free sample issue >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

Navigate This Article