, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 53–66 | Cite as

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

Original Paper


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.


Community engagement Deliberative governance Nanodialogues Nano-regulatory debates Publics Public engagement Regulation 



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.


  1. 1.
    Ashforth A (1990) Reckoning schemes of legitimation: on commissions of inquiry as power/knowledge forms. J Hist Sociol 3(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian Government (2008a) Approach to the Responsible Management of Nanotechnology. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from
  3. 3.
    Australian Government (2008b) Launch of ATSE Energy and Nanotechnologies Report, Media Release, Senator Carr, Innovation Minister. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from
  4. 4.
    Australian Government (2009) Nanotechnology and social inclusion report released, Media Release, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 26/2/09.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Australian Greens (2008) Greens ‘New Century’ Australia Senate Agenda. Retrieved July 25, 2009, from see
  6. 6.
    Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (AIBN) (2009) Innovation and Commercial Development. Retrieved June 21, 2009, from
  7. 7.
    Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON) (2008a) National Nanotechnology Strategy (NNS) Annual Report 2007-08. (Canberra: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON) (2008b) Social Inclusion and Engagement Workshop Report, December 2008 prepared by Mirella di Genua, Straight Talk, Haberfield, Australia.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON) (2009) Public Awareness and Engagement, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Retrieved May 2, 2009, from
  10. 10.
    Australian Research Council (ARC) (2009) Australian Research Council Nanotechnology Network. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from
  11. 11.
    Australian Research Council (ARC) (2007-08) Australian Research Council Annual Report 2007-08. (Canberra: Australian Government.)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bowman D (2008) Governing nanotechnologies: weaving new regulatory webs or patching up the old? NanoEthics 2(2):179–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bowman D, Hodge G (2007) Nanotechnology and the public interest dialogue: some international observations. Bull Sci Technol Soc 27(2):118–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 39:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    CSIRO Future Manufacturing Flagship (2009) Retrieved June 23, 2009, from
  17. 17.
    ETC Group (2004) Down on the Farm. The impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture. ETC Group, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ETC Group (2008) Organic pioneer says no to nano: ETC Group Welcomes World’s First ‘Nano-Free’ Standard. (Media Release) 14/01/08Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Parliament (2009) Novel Foods, MEPs Set New Rules’ Media Release 25/3/09, Retrieved April 20, 2009, from
  20. 20.
    Friends of the Earth Australia (2008a) Australia’s First Nano ‘Dialogue’ Shuts Out Critics, is Industry Biased’, Media ReleaseGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friends of the Earth Australia (2008b) Nano-Food VS Real Food, (forum flier)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goldsmith C (2008) Is the nanotech boom at risk? National Safety 79(11):32–37Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wynne B (2000) Wising up. the public and new technologies. Lancaster University, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 DCGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joly P, Kaufmann A (2008) Lost in translation? the need for ‘upstream engagement’ with nanotechnology on trial. Sci Cult 17(3):225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kyle R, Dodds S (2009) Avoiding empty rhetoric: engaging publics in debates about nanotechnology. Science Engineering Ethics 15:81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lezaun J, Soneryd L (2007) Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Underst Sci 16(3):279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ludlow K (2008) Nanoregulation: filtering out the small stuff. NanoEthics 2(2):183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lyons K (2008) Nanotech food and farming and impacts for organics. Australian Certified Organics Winter 30–31.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Macnaghten P, Kearnes M, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27:268–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maynard A (2006) Nanotechnology: a research strategy for addressing risk. Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Technologies, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  37. 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, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Murray H (2008) Safety concerns over high-tech sunscreens, Retrieved April 21, 2009, from
  39. 39.
    National Toxics Network (2009) What is community engagement? Viewed 20 April 2009,
  40. 40.
    Pelley J, Saner M (2009) International Approaches to the Regulatory Governance of Nanotechnology, Carleton University, Public Policy and Administration.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2005) GM nation and nanotechnology: what processes worked? Science and Public Affairs June:14–15.Google Scholar
  42. 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 3:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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):173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Powell M, Colin M (2008) Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology. Sci Commun 30(1):126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Queensland Nanodialogues (2008) Reference group: Terms of reference. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Tourism, Regional Development and Industry.Google Scholar
  46. 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 16:345–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2006) Reflecting upon the UK’s citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. Nanotechnology Law and Business 3(2):167–178Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (RS/RAE) (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) (2008) Novel materials in the environment: the case of nanotechnology. RCEP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Salleh A (2008) Nanotech regulation under the spotlight, Retrieved Feb 12, 2009, from
  51. 51.
    Salleh A (2009) Call for Control of nano-silver use ABC Science News, Retrieved June 22, 2009, from
  52. 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):22–44Google Scholar
  53. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Siegrist M, Cousin M, Kastenholz H, Wick A (2007) Pubic acceptance of nanotechnology foods and packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues. Experiments in public engagement in science. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. 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):262–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    The Age (14/4/2009) ‘Unions call for action to oversee nanotechnology’, Dan Harrison.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Toumey C (2006) Building nanoliteracy in the University and beyond. Nat Biotechnol 24:721–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biomolecular and Physical Sciences, Griffith UniversityNathanAustralia
  2. 2.The Change AgencyWest EndAustralia

Personalised recommendations