Opportunities and Uncertainties: The British Nanotechnologies Report and the

Case for Upstream Societal Dialogue?

Nick Pidgeon

Centre for Environmental Risk

University of East Anglia

Nanotechnology in Science, the Economy and Society,

Marburg, 13-15th January 2005

Overview

• The Royal Society Nanotechnologies report

• UK Public Attitudes

• ‘Upstream’ Engagement and Nanotechnologies

• The Perils and Promise of Upstream?

Chernobyl

Inquiry Remit

• Define nanoscience and nanotechnology

• Current scientific knowledge and potential applications

• Health and safety, environmental, ethical and societal implications or uncertainties

• Additional regulations?

See: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties Royal

Society / Royal Acad. Eng, 2004

Inquiry Process

• One year process July 03- July 04

• Science, engineering, social sciences, ethics, consumer protection and the environment

• Written and oral submissions from a wide range of stakeholders – open evidence

• Also the views of the public through survey and qualitative workshops

Social and Ethical Questions• Surveillance and civil liberties

• Economic impacts

• Military developments

• Human enhancement and impacts upon identity

• Implications of ‘convergence’ of emerging technologies (nano-bio-info-cogno)

Royal Society /RAE report

Ch 7 – Stakeholder and Public Dialogue

– Public attitudes work

– The case for ‘upstream’ engagement

Royal Society /RAE Survey : British Awareness of Nanotechnology (January 04)

 

Heard of and able to provide any definition of nanotechnology (n=1005)

19% Yes 81% No (inc Don’t Know) 

A majority (68%) of the 172 respondents who could offer a definition thought nanotechnology will improve our way of life in the next 20 years as compared to 4% who said it will make things worse?

See: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties Royal Society / Royal Acad. Eng, 2004, London, pp 59-62.

 

Royal Society /RAE Survey : Those Who Could Give Definitions Said

Primarily:• Micro or small scale technology and science/

miniaturisation / small robots, droids / atoms and molecules / very small measurements

Plus some mention of • Computing / internet / microchips / circuits• Implanting / in the body or blood / medical / regeneration

(n= 172)

Royal Society /RAE Qualitative Workshops (December 03)

• Because awareness low – need for information input

• 2 workshops (London, Birmingham): n approx 50

• 3 hour format moderated by market researchers

• Presence of scientist as ‘expert witness’

See: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties Royal Society / Royal Acad. Eng, 2004, London, pp 59-62.

Royal Society /RAE Qualitative Workshops (December 03)

• Enthusiasm for the possible ways that nanotechnology would benefit their and others lives

• Concern over any long-term uncertainties associated with nanotechnology

• Role and behaviour of institutions – who can be trusted to ultimately control and regulate nanotechnology?

• Ethical concerns over messing with the building blocks of nature

Developmental Stages of Risk Communication (1970s-1990s)

1) Get the numbers right2) Tell people the numbers3) Explain what the numbers mean4) Show people they accepted similar risks5) Show people it’s a good deal for them6) Treat people nicely7) Make people partners8) (and if all else fails) All of the above

Fischhoff, B. 1995 Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15, 137-145.

Analytic-Deliberative Process

• Combines sound science and systematic uncertainty analysis with deliberation by an appropriate representation of affected parties, policy makers, and specialists in risk analysis.

• Should occur throughout the process of risk characterisation, from problem framing through to detailed risk assessment and then on to risk management and decision implementation.

See: US National Research Council Understanding Risk (1996).

Reasons for Engagement and Dialogue

• Incorporating Public Values in Decisions (e.g. equity)

• Improving Decision Quality

• Resolving Conflict

• Establishing Trust and Legitimacy

• Education and Information (but need genuine two-way engagement)

See: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties Royal Society / Royal Acad. Eng, 2004, London, Ch 7.

2004 - ‘Upstream’ Engagement and Emerging Technologies

• Dialogue and deliberation amongst affected parties about a potentially controversial risk issue at an early stage of the Research & Development process and in advance of significant applications or controversy

see: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties Royal Society / Royal Acad. Eng, 2004, London.

also: Demos See Through Science, 2004, London

Nanotechnologies as an Upstream Issue?

• Key decisions about technological trajectory still to be made

• Impacts and applications are hypothetical or yet to be envisioned

• Very low public awareness

• No major controversy as yet (few Civil Society groups have prioritised it in any countries)

Nanotechnologies and the GM analogy?

• Is it really equivalent to biotechnology in 1980s?

• Some similarities but GM provides only the background context not the whole model

• Other troubled (nuclear, chemicals) as well as less controversial (IT) analogies exist

• Current dialogue and engagement is a key difference

• Social amplification always plays out in complex ways

Methods for Engagement

• Participatory and/or Constructive Technology Assessment

• Scenario Analysis

• Direct Public Engagement (e.g. citizen jury)

• Decision Analysis

• Multi-stage Approaches

• Public Attitudes Research

See: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties Royal Society / Royal Acad. Eng, 2004, London

Engagement Methods– Generic Difficulties (from ‘Downstream’ experience)

• Unintended consequences of stakeholder participation?

• Who represents the public?

• Lack of impact on real decisions may lead to stakeholder fatigue.

• Reconciling public debate with other evidence streams?

Evidence Streams for Risk Policy: 3 Key Components

Science

CostsBenefits Utility

Value of Life(Uncertainty)

Economics

Evidence Measurable Risk

Peer Review Nature

Public Debate Values

Trust Uncertainty

Society

POLICY ?

‘Upstream’ Engagement and Nanotechnologies – Some Issues

• As applications are currently uncertain, engagement over what? And with what methods?

• Awareness may be very low anyway, hence:

– Research methods not neutral (e.g. qualitative vs. quantitative)

– Provision of information and problem framing will be critical (but with dangers of reversion to ‘old style’ one-way risk communication and PUS?)

‘Upstream’ Engagement and Nanotechnologies – Some Issues

• What if engagement and its associated controversy/publicity constructs the risk object?

• What is the logic of unconstrained ‘deliberation’

• Connecting the upstream ‘analytic’ with the ‘deliberative’ may prove very difficult

Concluding Comments

• Need to learn best practice from engagement as ‘analytic deliberative’ processes – methods employed are important

• ‘Upstream’ engagement presents significant challenges as well as potential opportunities in relation to emerging technologies

Programme on Understanding Risk

Public Perceptions, Institutional Change and Stakeholder

Participation

www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur