[chrispenycate]

Oh, nanotech, if they can get it working, will change things. Possibly as much as large scale integration bringing down computing prices (what can you think of that hasn't been modified by computing or related technology)
But it will probably take as long to catch on, too, giving society enough time to get used to it.
Take mining, an obvious use. While it could reduce energy expenditure by a large factor (not eliminate it, however, and power supplies and reserves are one of the weak points in the developement. Nanotech is not really one field, it's a collection of different attacks with one ultimate aim, and until they are all successful it's a bit like the Russian digital watch running off a car battery) but it's unlikely to replace traditional techniques for iron ore for decades; not enough economic pressure. Platinum, or paladium, much sooner. The much written-about medical advantages, twenty-five or thirty years further down the line (and specific, non-replicating one-problem versions at that; and probably powered by external microwave radiation so stopping them is just a question of turning the power off, too).
I think biotechnology is far more likely to give immediate problems, because that is already under weigh, and more difficult to controll all the conditions of, anyway.
Which doesn't mean it's not a good idea to plan in advance the problems that are going to arrive (and there will be problems, certainly; but I'd make a bet that the ones predicted won't be the ones that actually turn up, if it weren't for the fact I won't live to collect) Just don't load the comittee with too many luddites, unwilling for any change. Accept that there's a lot of good that can be achieved that way that would be extremely difficult otherwise, but nothing comes for free.