Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are increasing calls internationally for the development of regulation and policies related to the rapidly growing nanotechnologies sector. As part of the process of policy formation, it is widely accepted that deliberative community engagement processes should be included, enabling publics to have a say about nanotechnologies, expressing their hopes and fears, issues and concerns, and that these will be considered as part of the policy process. The Australian Federal and State governments have demonstrated a commitment to these ideals, undertaking a number of public engagement activities in recent years. However, despite promises that these community engagement activities will enable policy makers to identify complex and contested community attitudes, and that these will be included as part of the policy making process, a closer look at Australia’s engagement activities reveals something quite different. Through an analysis of a number of Australia’s nano-engagement activities, this paper demonstrates the limits of public engagement related to the development of nanotechnology related policies and regulation in Australia. Our analysis reveals the extent to which industry interests have captured policy makers and regulators, dissenting voices have been excluded from engagement processes, and engagement processes have not connected with actual policy making activities. Reflecting on these limits, this paper concludes with recommendations for improving public engagement processes related to nanotechnologies in Australia.

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. Approaches to nano-regulation in Australia have been explored in an earlier edition of NanoEthics by Bowman, Bowman and Hodge and Ludlow (volume 2, number 2, [12]).

  2. The AON invited participants from Government, industry, researchers, community and ‘change agents’ to come together as part of the Social Inclusion and Engagement Workshop. The purpose of this workshop was for participants to discuss ‘how social inclusion could be increased and improved engagement [could] occur across sectors’ (AON [9]: 2). The outcomes of this workshop will ‘inform AON’s approach to involving key stakeholders in ongoing discussions about social inclusion and stakeholder engagement’ (AON [9]: 2).

  3. The Queensland Nanodialogues was modelled on the UK Nanodialogues community engagement process, and sought to bring together scientists, industry, civil society, consumer groups and publics to discuss a broad range of issues related to nanotechnologies. The stated purpose of the dialogue was to learn about the public’s hopes and fears about the technology, and how they would like to see it used in Queensland [47].

  4. Powell [43] described a similar scenario in the United States; the knowledge claims of a narrow range of discipline-specific scientists were frequently centralised in nanotechnology debates, meanwhile those scientists engaged in research related to broader issues (for example health and ecotoxicological effects of nanotechnologies) participated in dialogue in only limited ways. It was also those later scientists that were most likely to have concerns about nanotechnologies, and yet these concerns were frequently not brought to bear in nano-debates.

  5. Friends of the Earth Australia were invited to attend this workshop, however opted not to participate, stating that their concerns about the process were not resolved satisfactorily.

References

  1. Ashforth A (1990) Reckoning schemes of legitimation: on commissions of inquiry as power/knowledge forms. J Hist Sociol 3(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Australian Government (2008a) Approach to the Responsible Management of Nanotechnology. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Documents/ObjectivesPaper.pdf.

  3. Australian Government (2008b) Launch of ATSE Energy and Nanotechnologies Report, Media Release, Senator Carr, Innovation Minister. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Carr/Pages/launchofatseenergyandnanotechnologiesreport.aspx.

  4. Australian Government (2009) Nanotechnology and social inclusion report released, Media Release, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 26/2/09.

  5. Australian Greens (2008) Greens ‘New Century’ Australia Senate Agenda. Retrieved July 25, 2009, from see http://greens.org.au/node/2169.

  6. Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (AIBN) (2009) Innovation and Commercial Development. Retrieved June 21, 2009, from http://www.aibn.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=45761.

  7. Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON) (2008a) National Nanotechnology Strategy (NNS) Annual Report 2007-08. (Canberra: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.)

  8. Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON) (2008b) Social Inclusion and Engagement Workshop Report, December 2008 prepared by Mirella di Genua, Straight Talk, Haberfield, Australia.

  9. Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON) (2009) Public Awareness and Engagement, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Pages/PublicAwarenessandEngagement.aspx.

  10. Australian Research Council (ARC) (2009) Australian Research Council Nanotechnology Network. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from http://www.ausnano.net/index.php?page=home.

  11. Australian Research Council (ARC) (2007-08) Australian Research Council Annual Report 2007-08. (Canberra: Australian Government.)

  12. Bowman D (2008) Governing nanotechnologies: weaving new regulatory webs or patching up the old? NanoEthics 2(2):179–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bowman D, Hodge G (2007) Nanotechnology and the public interest dialogue: some international observations. Bull Sci Technol Soc 27(2):118–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chaudhry Q, Scotter M, Blackburn J, Ross B, Boxall A, Castle L, Aitken R, Watkins R (2008) Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Addit Contam 25(3):241–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cocklin C, Dibden J, Gibbs D (2008) Competitiveness versus ‘clean and green’? the regulation and governance of GMOs in Australia and the UK. Geoforum 39:161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. CSIRO Future Manufacturing Flagship (2009) Retrieved June 23, 2009, from http://www.csiro.au/org/Future-Manufacturing-Flagship-Overview.html.

  17. ETC Group (2004) Down on the Farm. The impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture. ETC Group, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  18. ETC Group (2008) Organic pioneer says no to nano: ETC Group Welcomes World’s First ‘Nano-Free’ Standard. (Media Release) 14/01/08

  19. European Parliament (2009) Novel Foods, MEPs Set New Rules’ Media Release 25/3/09, Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/067-52498-082-03-13-911-20090324IPR52497-23-03-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm.

  20. Friends of the Earth Australia (2008a) Australia’s First Nano ‘Dialogue’ Shuts Out Critics, is Industry Biased’, Media Release

  21. Friends of the Earth Australia (2008b) Nano-Food VS Real Food, (forum flier)

  22. Goldsmith C (2008) Is the nanotech boom at risk? National Safety 79(11):32–37

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wynne B (2000) Wising up. the public and new technologies. Lancaster University, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hart P et al (2007) Awareness of and attitude toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies: a report of findings based on a national survey amongst adults. Conducted on behalf of project on emerging technologies. The Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  25. International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) (2008) UK Royal Commission Warns of Lethal Impact of Unregulated Nanotech Products (Media Release), Retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=5505&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1.

  26. Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320

  27. Joly P, Kaufmann A (2008) Lost in translation? the need for ‘upstream engagement’ with nanotechnology on trial. Sci Cult 17(3):225–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kyle R, Dodds S (2009) Avoiding empty rhetoric: engaging publics in debates about nanotechnology. Science Engineering Ethics 15:81–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lezaun J, Soneryd L (2007) Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Underst Sci 16(3):279–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ludlow K (2008) Nanoregulation: filtering out the small stuff. NanoEthics 2(2):183–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ludlow K, Bowman D, Hodge G (2007) A review of possible impacts of nanotechnology on Australia’s regulatory framework, final report to the Australian government. Melbourne: Monash Regulatory Studies Centre, Faculty of Law, Monash University.

  32. Lyons K (2008) Nanotech food and farming and impacts for organics. Australian Certified Organics Winter 30–31.

  33. Lyons K, Scrinis G (2009) The nanotechnology treadmill and the future of food and agriculture. In: Gould K, Torres B (ds) Nanotechnology, Social Change and the Environment. Rowman and Littlefield.

  34. MARS (2008) Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology: Trends 2005–2008, presented to the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Market Attitude Research Services Pty Ltd.

  35. Macnaghten P, Kearnes M, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27:268–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Maynard A (2006) Nanotechnology: a research strategy for addressing risk. Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Technologies, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  37. Miller G, Senjen R (2008) Out of the laboratory and onto our plates. Nanotechnology in food and agriculture. Friends of the Earth Australia, Europe and USA, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  38. Murray H (2008) Safety concerns over high-tech sunscreens, Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2449409.htm.

  39. National Toxics Network (2009) What is community engagement? Viewed 20 April 2009, http://ntn.org.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=46.

  40. Pelley J, Saner M (2009) International Approaches to the Regulatory Governance of Nanotechnology, Carleton University, Public Policy and Administration.

  41. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2005) GM nation and nanotechnology: what processes worked? Science and Public Affairs June:14–15.

  42. Poland C, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace W, Seaton A, Stone V, Brown S, MacNee W, Donaldson K (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnology 3:423–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Powell M (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? how scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health, Risk Soc 9(2):173–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Powell M, Colin M (2008) Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology. Sci Commun 30(1):126–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Queensland Nanodialogues (2008) Reference group: Terms of reference. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Tourism, Regional Development and Industry.

  46. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement ‘upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering’s inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16:345–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2006) Reflecting upon the UK’s citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnology Law and Business 3(2):167–178

    Google Scholar 

  48. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (RS/RAE) (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London

    Google Scholar 

  49. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) (2008) Novel materials in the environment: the case of nanotechnology. RCEP, London

    Google Scholar 

  50. Salleh A (2008) Nanotech regulation under the spotlight, Retrieved Feb 12, 2009, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/12/2301936.htm.

  51. Salleh A (2009) Call for Control of nano-silver use ABC Science News, Retrieved June 22, 2009, from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/06/12/2594441.htm.

  52. Scrinis G, Lyons K (2007) The emerging nano-corporate paradigm: nanotechnology and the transformation of nature, food and agri-food systems. International Journal for the Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15(2):22–44

    Google Scholar 

  53. Scrinis G, Lyons K (2009) Nanotechnologies and the Agri-Food Sector. In: Lawrence G, Lyons K, Wallington T (eds) Food security, nutrition and sustainability: new challenges, future options. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  54. Senjen R (2009) Dialogues around nanotechnology disconnected from any decision-making processes are pointless. Friends of the Earth Australia. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://nano.foe.org.au/node/283.

  55. Senjen R, Illuminato I (2009) Nano and biocidal silver. Extreme germ killers present a growing threat to public health. Friends of the Earth Australia and Friends of the Earth United States.

  56. Siegrist M, Cousin M, Kastenholz H, Wick A (2007) Pubic acceptance of nanotechnology foods and packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues. Experiments in public engagement in science. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  58. Stirling A (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: power, participation and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Human Values 33(2):262–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. The Age (14/4/2009) ‘Unions call for action to oversee nanotechnology’, Dan Harrison.

  60. Toumey C (2006) Building nanoliteracy in the University and beyond. Nat Biotechnol 24:721–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge funding from a Griffith University Research Grant (GURG) and the Centre for Governance and Public Policy at Griffith University. Both have assisted in the conduct of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia

    Kristen Lyons

  2. The Change Agency, West End, Australia

    James Whelan

Authors
  1. Kristen Lyons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Whelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristen Lyons.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lyons, K., Whelan, J. Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia. Nanoethics 4, 53–66 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0070-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0070-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation