2. 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, 13-15 th January 2005

3. Overview The Royal Society Nanotechnologies report UK Public Attitudes ‘Upstream’ Engagement and Nanotechnologies The Perils and Promise of Upstream?

4. Chernobyl

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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)

11. Royal Society /RAE report Ch 7 – Stakeholder and Public Dialogue –Public attitudes work –The case for ‘upstream’ engagement

12. Royal Society /RAE Survey : British Awareness of Nanotechnology (January 04) Heard of and able to provide any definition of nanotechnology (n=1005) 19% Yes81% 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.

13. 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)

14. 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.

15. 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

16. Developmental Stages of Risk Communication (1970s-1990s) 1) Get the numbers right 2) Tell people the numbers 3) Explain what the numbers mean 4) Show people they accepted similar risks 5) Show people it’s a good deal for them 6) Treat people nicely 7) Make people partners 8) (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.

17. 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).

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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)

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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?

25. Evidence Streams for Risk Policy: 3 Key Components Science  Costs  Benefits  Utility  Value of Life  (Uncertainty) Economics  Evidence  Measurable Risk  Peer Review  Nature Public Debate  Values  Trust  Uncertainty  Society POLICY ?

26. ‘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?)

27. ‘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

28. 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

29. Programme on Understanding Risk Public Perceptions, Institutional Change and Stakeholder Participation www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur