Arvidsson Rickard, Boholm Max, Johansson Mikael, de Montoya Monica Lindh
1Division of Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Vera Sandbergs Allé 8, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden.
2Gothenburg Research Institute, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 603, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Nanoethics. 2018;12(3):199-210. doi: 10.1007/s11569-018-0324-y. Epub 2018 Oct 22.
Graphene is a nanomaterial with many promising and innovative applications, yet early studies indicate that graphene may pose risks to humans and the environment. According to ideas of responsible research and innovation, all relevant actors should strive to reduce risks related to technological innovations. Through semi-structured interviews, we investigated the idea of graphene as a risk (or not) held by two types of key actors: graphene researchers and innovation advisors at universities, where the latter are facilitating the movement of graphene from the laboratory to the marketplace. The most common idea found is that graphene is not a risk due to, e.g., low toxicity, low amounts produced/used, and its similarity to harmless materials (being "just carbon"). However, some researchers and advisors also say that graphene is a risk, e.g., under certain conditions or due to a lack of risk-related information. We explain the co-existence of these seemingly contradictory ideas through (1) the semantic ambiguity of the word risk and (2) a risk/no-risk rhetoric, where risks are mentioned rhetorically only to be disregarded as manageable or negligible. We suggest that some of the ideas held by the researchers and innovation advisors constitute a challenge to responsible research and innovation regarding graphene. At the same time, we acknowledge the dilemma that the discourse of responsible innovation creates for the actors: denying graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to a lack of risk awareness, while affirming graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to their everyday engagement in graphene development. We therefore recommend more research into what researchers and innovation advisors should do in practice in order to qualify as responsible.
石墨烯是一种具有许多前景广阔且创新应用的纳米材料,但早期研究表明,石墨烯可能对人类和环境构成风险。根据负责任的研究与创新理念,所有相关行为者都应努力降低与技术创新相关的风险。通过半结构化访谈,我们调查了两类关键行为者对石墨烯是否构成风险的看法:石墨烯研究人员以及大学的创新顾问,后者正在推动石墨烯从实验室走向市场。最常见的看法是,石墨烯不构成风险,原因在于例如低毒性、生产/使用量少以及它与无害材料相似(“只是碳”)。然而,一些研究人员和顾问也表示,石墨烯是一种风险,例如在某些条件下或由于缺乏与风险相关的信息。我们通过(1)“风险”一词的语义模糊性以及(2)一种风险/无风险的修辞来解释这些看似矛盾的观点的共存,在这种修辞中,风险只是被口头上提及,却被视为可控或可忽略而不予理会。我们认为,研究人员和创新顾问所持的一些观点对石墨烯的负责任研究与创新构成了挑战。与此同时,我们认识到负责任创新的话语给行为者带来的困境:否认石墨烯风险会因缺乏风险意识而使他们不负责任,而肯定石墨烯风险则会因他们日常参与石墨烯开发而使他们不负责任。因此,我们建议针对研究人员和创新顾问在实践中应如何做到负责任进行更多研究。