Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies

  • Orginal Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the amount of public investment in nanotechnology ventures in the developed world, research shows that there is little public awareness about nanotechnology, and public knowledge is very limited. This is concerning given that nanotechnology has been heralded as ‘revolutionising’ the way we live. In this paper, we articulate why public engagement in debates about nanotechnology is important, drawing on literature on public engagement and science policy debate and deliberation about public policy development. We also explore the significance of timing in engaging the public, and we make some suggestions concerning how to effectively engage publics. Our conclusions indicate the significance of scientific researchers, policy makers and representative consumer groupings in public reasoning towards a better public policy framework for debate about technological development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Calculation based on figures provided by Australian Bureau of Statistics’ 2004–2005 Research and Experimental Development All Sector Summary Report 8112.0.

References

  1. Prime Ministers’ Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. (2005). Nanotechnologies: Enabling technologies for Australian innovative industries. Available from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/science_innovation/science_agencies_committees/prime_ministers_science_engineering_innovation_council/meetings/thirteenth_meeting.htm. Accessed 30 January 2008.

  2. Lux Research Inc. (2007). The nanotech report (5th ed.). New York: Lux Research Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Commonwealth Government of Australia. Invest Australia. (2005). Australian nanotechnology: Capability and commercial potential (2nd ed.). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Available from http://www.academie-technologies.fr/actu/international/nanotechnologies/IR_Nano_Nanotech%20Report.pdf.

  4. Dandolo Partners. (2005). Nanotechnologies: A national survey of consumers: Detailed Report. Report for Nanotechnologies Victoria. Available from http://www.nanovic.com.au/. Accessed 23 April, 2008.

  5. Peter, D., & Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2007). Awareness of and attitude towards nanotechnologies and federal regulatory agencies: A report of findings based on a national survey of adults. Conducted on behalf of Project on Emerging Technologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars. Available from http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/5888/hart_nanopoll_2007.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2008.

  6. BMRB Social Research. (2008). Nanotechnology: Views of the general public. Prepared for the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Nanotechnology Working Group. Available from www.nanotec.org.uk. Accessed 23 April 2008.

  7. Market Attitude Research Services. (2007). Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology—trends 2005 to 2007 final report. Conducted on behalf of the Australian Commonwealth Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Available from http://www.innovation.gov.au/Documents/MARSreport20070801094555.pdf.

  8. Jasanoff, S. (2004). Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science & Public Policy, 31, 90–94. doi:10.3152/147154304781780064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ankeny, R. A., & Dodds, S. (2008). Hearing community voices: Public engagement in Australian human embryo research policy, 2005–2007. New Genetics and Society, 27(3) (forthcoming, Sept 2008).

  12. Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science?: The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. McDowell, A. (2002). Trust and information: The role of trust in the social epistemology of information science. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 51–63. doi:10.1080/210132798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics, 107, 4–25. doi:10.1086/233694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2006). It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. Business Ethics (Oxford, England), 15(2), 154–170. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00439.x.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ludlow, K., Bowman, D., & Hodge, G. (2008). A review of possible impacts of nanotechnology on Australia’s regulatory frameworks. Melbourne: Monash University Law. Available from: http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Documents/MonashReport2008.pdf.

  17. Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299–320. doi:10.1177/0306312706053350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ivison, D. (2002). Postcolonial liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Elster, J. (1998). Introduction. In J. Elster (Ed.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dodds, S., & Ankeny, R. A. (2006). Regulation of hESC Research in Australia: Promises and pitfalls for deliberative democratic approaches. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 3(1–2), 95–107. doi:10.1007/s11673-006-9007-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2005). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  23. National Nanotechnology Strategy Taskforce. (2006). Options for a national nanotechnology strategy. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kearnes, M., Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., & Wynne, B. (2006). From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture, 15(4), 291–307. doi:10.1080/09505430601022619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Commonwealth Government of Australia. (2007). Australian national nanotechnology strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Available from: http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/ImplementationoftheNationalNanotechnologyStrategy.aspx.

  26. Sandler, R., & Kay, W. D. (2006). The GMO-nanotech (dis)analogy? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(1), 57–62. doi:10.1177/0270467605284348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ebbesen, M., Andersen, S., & Besenbacher, F. (2006). Ethics in nanotechnology: Starting from scratch? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 451–462. doi:10.1177/0270467606295003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Scheufele, D. A. (2008, February). Engaging religious audiences on nanotechnology. In Presented to the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, MA.

  29. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Cohen, G., & Kysar, D. (2008). Biased assimilation, polarization, and cultural credibility: An experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Research Brief No. 3.

  30. Macnaghten, P. (2004). Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology, 38(3), 533–551. doi:10.1177/0038038504043217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cranor, C. F. (2003). How should society approach the real and potential risks posed by new technologies? Plant Physiology, 133, 3–9. doi:10.1104/pp.103.026435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Preston, C. J. (2005). The promise and threat of nanotechnologies. HYLE–International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 11(1), 19–44.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Friends of the Earth Australia. (2006). An analysis by friends of the earth of the national nanotechnologies strategy taskforce report: “Options for a national nanotechnologies strategy”. Friends of the Earth Australia Nanotechnologies Project. Available from http://nano.foe.org.au/node/146. Accessed 28 November, 2007.

  34. Clarke, S. (2005). Future technologies, dystopic futures and the precautionary principle. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 121–126. doi:10.1007/s10676-006-0007-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R., & Doubleday, R. (2007). Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnologies Engagement Group (NEG). London, UK: Involve. Available from http://83.223.102.125/involvenew/mt/archives/blog_37/Democratic%20Technologies.pdf. Accessed 3 February, 2007.

  36. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 268–287. doi:10.1177/1075547005281531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. European Commission. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate (Directorate-General for Research, European Commission). Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/european-knowledge-society_en.pdf.

  38. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496. doi:10.1177/0270467606295402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rogers-Hayden, T., & Pidgeon, N. (2007). Moving engagement ‘upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 345–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnologies hazards. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59–69. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bruce, D. (2007). Engaging citizens on nanobiotechnology using the DEMOCS game: Interim report on DEMOCS games on nanobiotechnology played in the UK and The Netherlands 2007. Edinburgh: DEMOCS. Available from: http://files.nanobio-raise.org/Downloads/nbrdemocs.pdf.

  42. European Commission. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends. Eurobarometer 64.3. London: European Commission. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2006/pdf/pr1906_eb_64_3_final_report-may2006_en.pdf.

  43. Siegrist, M., Cousin, M., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49, 459–466. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Friends of Earth Australia. Friends of the Earth Europe and Friends of the Earth USA. (2008). Out of the laboratory and onto our plates: Nanotechnology in food and agriculture. Melbourne: Friends of the Earth Australia. Available from: http://nano.foe.org.au/filestore2/download/227/Nanotechnology%20in%20food%20and%20agriculture%20-%20web%20resolution.pdf.

  45. Bowman, D., & Hodge, G. (2007). Nanotechnologies and public interest dialogue: Some international observations. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(2), 118–132. doi:10.1177/0270467606298216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Moor, J., & Weckert, J. (2004). Nanoethics: Assessing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 301–310). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 23(4), 93–109.

  48. Gordjin, B. (2003). Nanoethics: From utopian dreams and apocalyptic nightmares towards a more balanced view. Paris, France: UNESCO. Available from http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=6603ampURL_DO=DO_TOPICURL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 21 January, 2008.

  49. International Association for Public Participation. (2007). IAP2 public participation spectrum 2007. International Association for Public Participation. Available from http://iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf. Accessed 13 February, 2008.

  50. Katz, E., Lovel, R., Mee, W., & Solomon, F. (2005). Citizen’s panel on nanotechnology report to participants. Canberra: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Available from: http://www.minerals.csiro.au/sd/pubs/Citizens_Panel_Report_to_Participants_April_2005_final_110.pdf.

  51. Market Attitude Research Services. (2008). Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology—trends 2005 to 2008 presentation report. Conducted on behalf of the Australian Commonwealth Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Available from http://www.innovation.gov.au/Documents/MARSreport20070801094555.pdfhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Documents/MARS%20Study%202008%20for%20website.pdf.

  52. Friends of the Earth Australia. (August 2008). Australia’s first nano ‘dialogue’ shuts out critics, is industry biased. Friends of the Earth Australia Nanotechnology Project. Available from http://nano.foe.org.au/node/260.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Gwynneville, 2522, NSW, Australia

    Renee Kyle

  2. School of English Literatures, Philosophy and Languages, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Gwynneville, 2522, NSW, Australia

    Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds

Authors
  1. Renee Kyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Dodds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renee Kyle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kyle, R., Dodds, S. Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies. Sci Eng Ethics 15, 81–96 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9089-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9089-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation