Citizens sometimes do not appreciate a new ‘strategic’ technology because its implementation is considered risky. Nuclear energy and agricultural biotechnology are two past examples. Some think that nanotechnology is the next contested technology, because there are hints at as well as uncertainty over risks. Considering the above, is it fair to spare nanotechnology the fate of agro-biotechnology? The question is not only how safe a technology is and what we know about it but what we do not know, how (un)safe we consider it and what we demand in terms of safety. Since context is paramount, the term ‘safety’ is a token for other aspects relevant for acceptance such as the aims linked to technology development. In a global competition, does this imply adopting the aims of the technological leaders, particularly the US? The example of ‘converging technologies’ shows that this is not necessarily so. Rather, the experience with biotechnology shows that the neglect of societal embedding leads to results deplored today. Thus, more attention should be paid to embedding strategic technologies in society.