Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting “Upstream Public Engagement”: from a Habermasian Perspective

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

Abstract

The idea of conducting “upstream public engagement,” using nanotechnology as a test case, has been subject to criticism for its lack of any link to the political system. Drawing on the theoretical tools provided by Habermas, this article seeks to explore such a “link”, focusing specifically on the capacity of civil society organizations (CSOs) to distil, raise and transmit societal concerns in an amplified form to the public spheres at the European Union (EU) level. Based on content analysis and semi-structured interviews with relevant actors, this article examines the evolution of CSO approaches towards nanotechnology over the past decade and investigates whether and how upstream public engagement could contribute to more vibrant public spheres and facilitate the formation of communicative power. The answer to these questions is twofold: on the one hand, moving public engagement “upstream” enables CSOs to be better informed and to become part of the debates more quickly. A “green alliance” is taking shape, which calls for more stringent regulation on nanomaterials. On the other hand, upstream public engagement has turned out to be unsuccessful in generating substantial and sustained interest. A number of CSOs have quit this field in frustration at the tokenistic engagement and out of fatigue after the intense lobbying battle for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).

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. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nanologue_projectdescription_en.pdf

  2. http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/102583451EN6.pdf

  3. Though located in a member state, Greenpeace UK actively promoted discussions on nanotechnology in both the UK and the EU.

  4. Interview with Dania Cristofaro, policy officer of ECOS, 21 October 2014

  5. http://www.nanocap.eu/Flex/Site/Page4662.html?PageID=%26Lang

  6. Environmental CSOs: Baltic Environmental Forum, EEB, Legambiente, MIO-ECSDE, and Stichting Natuur en Milieu. Trade unions: FNV, ETUI, Kooperationsstelle Hamburg, AMICUS the Union, and PPM

  7. http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2385

  8. Interview with David Azoulay, managing attorney of CIEL, 06 August 2014

  9. Interview with a DG Employment, 22 September 2014

  10. Interview with Franz Fiala, the chair of ANEC Nanotechnology Project Team, 27 August 2014

  11. E-mail exchange with Dr. Doug Parr, senior scientist of Greenpeace UK, 21 May 2014

  12. Interview with Lone Mikkelsen, chemicals policy officer of the Danish Ecological Council, 26 September 2014

  13. Interview with Doreen Fedrigo-Fazio, NanoDiode project coordinator of ETUI, 16 December 2014

  14. E-mail exchanges with Gérald Hayotte, in charge of activities on nanotechnology within CFDT, member of the dialogue committee on « Nanos » of ANSES, 14 September 2014

  15. Interview with Sylvia Maurer, head of BEUC Sustainability and Safety, 14 July 2014

  16. Interview with Doreen Fedrigo-Fazio, NanoDiode project coordinator of ETUI, 16 December 2014

  17. E.g. Aïda Ponce of ETUI, Tatiana Santos of EEB, Vito Buonsante of ClientEarth, David Azoulay of CIEL, Franz Fiala of ANEC

  18. Interview with Doreen Fedrigo-Fazio, NanoDiode project coordinator of ETUI, 16 December 2014

  19. E-mail exchanges with Kevin Stairs, chemicals policy director of Greenpeace Europe, 29 August 2014

  20. E-mail exchanges with Lisette van Vliet, senior policy advisor of HEAL, 29 August 2014

  21. Interview with David Azoulay, managing attorney of CIEL, 06 August 2014

  22. ibid.

  23. They are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, and Sweden.

  24. Interview with Monique Bosman, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, national coordinator of the NANoREG Project, 22 December 2014

  25. UK was reported to oppose any additional regulatory measures beyond changes to the REACH annexes. See Chemical Watch (2013) “Split remains on EU nano policy.” 26 March 2013

  26. Follow this link to view the press conference (nanomaterials are mentioned from 38:01 until 38:37) http://webcast.streamdis.eu/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=839e6802f828453896391d6e9ec7474a1d.

References

  1. Crow MM, Sarewitz D (2001) Nanotechnology and societal transformation. In: Teich AH et al (eds) AAAS science and technology policy yearbook 2001. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC, pp 89–101

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wilsdon J, Wynne B, Stilgoe J (2005) The public value of science: or how to ensure that science really matters. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pidgeon NF, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9:191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rogers-Hayden T, Mohr A, Pidgeon NF (2007) Introduction: engaging with nanotechnologies, engaging differently? NanoEthics 1:123–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Toumey C (2006) Science and democracy. Nat Nanotechnol 1(1):6–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. CORDIS News (2006) Communication and risk assessment: keys to unleashing nano-potential. http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/26531_en.html. Accessed 20 October 2006

  8. European Commission (2004) Communication towards a European strategy for nanotechnology, COM(2004) 338 final, Brussels

  9. Taverne D (2004) Let’s be sensible about public participation. Nature 432:271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kearnes M, Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J, Wynne B (2006) From bio to nano: learning lessons from the UK agriculture biotechnology controversy. Sci Cult 15(4):291–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Joly PB, Kaufmann A (2008) Lost in translation? The need for ‘upstream engagement’ with nanotechnology on trial. Sci Cult 17(3):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stirling A (2008) “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33(2):262–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Doubleday R (2007) The laboratory revisited: academic science and the responsible development of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 1:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Habermas J (1996) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  15. ETC. (2003) The big down: atomtech—technologies converging at the atomic scale. http://www.rtd.si/slo/6op/podr/nanoteh/gradivo/inc/genom-atom-nanoworld-110303.pdf. Accessed January 2003

  16. European Commission (2005) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005–2009, COM(2005) 243 final, Brussels

  17. European Commission (2004) European workshop on social and economic issues of nanotechnologies and nanosciences. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/elsa_nano_workshop_report.pdf. Accessed August 2004

  18. European Commission (2004) Nanotechnology: a preliminary risk analysis on the basis of a workshop organized in Brussels on 1–2 March 2004 by the DG SANCO of the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20040301_en.pdf. Accessed 01 March 2004

  19. Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues: experiments in public engagement with science. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Seifert F, Plows A (2014) From anti-biotech to nano-watch: early risers and spin-off campaigners in Germany, the UK and internationally. NanoEthics 8:73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Laurent B (2007) Diverging convergences: competing meanings of nanotechnology and converging technologies in a local context. Innov: Eur J Soc Sci Res 20(4):343–357

    Google Scholar 

  22. CORDIS News (2003) Nanotechnology: opportunity or threat? http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/20401_en.html. Accessed 12 June 2003

  23. New Scientist (2003) Anti-nanotech campaigners declare war on tiny things. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17824000-900-anti-nanotech-campaigners-declare-war-on-tiny-things/. Accessed 21 June 2003

  24. Greenpeace UK (2003) Future technologies, today’s choices. Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and robotics. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5886.pdf. Accessed July 2003

  25. Friends of the Earth (2003) The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering study on nanotechnology: comments from Friends of the Earth http://www.nanotec.org.uk/evidence/43FOTE.htm. Accessed 19 June 2003

  26. Parr D (2003) Without a reality check, claims of nanotech’s benefits are a con. Smalltimes. http://electroiq.com/blog/2003/09/without-a-reality-check-claims-of-nanotechs-benefits-are-a-con/. Accessed 26 September 2003

  27. Laffite NB, Joly PB (2008) Nanotechnology and society: where do we stand in the ladder of citizen participation? CIPAST Newsletter. http://www.cipast.org/download/CIPAST%20Newsletter%20Nano.pdf. Accessed 08 March 2008

  28. Irwin A, Wynne B (1996) Misunderstanding science: the public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Miller G, Scrinis G (2010) The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: challenging the ‘benefits versus risks’ framing of nanotech innovation. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 409–445

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hagendijk RP (2004) The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva 42(1):41–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. EEB (2009a) Challenges and opportunities to green nanotechnologies: Issue 1. EEB series: nanotechnologies in the 21st century

  32. EEB (2009b) Nanomaterials—health and environmental concerns: issue 2. EEB series: nanotechnologies in the 21st century

  33. EEB (2009c) A critical review of governance issues in Europe and elsewhere, issue 3. EEB series: nanotechnologies in the 21st century

  34. BEUC, ANEC (2010) How much nano do we buy? http://www.anec.eu/attachments/ANEC%20BEUC%20leaflet%20on%20nano%20inventory_How%20much%20nano%20do%20we%20buy.pdf. Accessed October 2010

  35. European Commission (2008) Communication towards a European strategy for nanotechnology, COM(2008) 366 final, Brussels

  36. Schlyter C (2009) Draft report on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/763/763225/763225en.pdf. Accessed 19 January 2009

  37. European Parliament (2009) Resolution on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials (2008/2208(INI)), Brussels

  38. EEB (2009) EEB annual report 2009 & budget. http://www.eeb.org/?LinkServID=E753F629-A6F4-1B71-A3446D134F990FDB&showMeta=0. Accessed 19 August 2014

  39. BBC News (2005) Euro MPs back major chemicals law. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4444550.stm. Accessed 17 November 2005

  40. Pesendorfer D (2006) EU environmental policy under pressure: chemicals policy change between antagonistic goals? Environ Politics 15(1):95–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Del Castillo AMP (2013) The European and member states’ approaches to regulating nanomaterials: two levels of governance. NanoEthics 7(3):189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. BEUC, ANEC (2009) Nanotechnology: small is beautiful but is it safe? http://www.anec.org/attachments/anec-pt-2009-nano-002final.pdf. Accessed June 2009

  43. ETUC (2008) Resolution on nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. http://www.etuc.org/sites/www.etuc.org/files/ETUC_resolution_on_nano_-_EN_-_25_June_08_2.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2008

  44. EEB (2009) EEB position paper on nanotechnologies and nanomaterials: small scale, big promises, divisive messages. http://www.eeb.org/publication/2009/090217_EEB_nano_position_paper.pdf. Accessed February 2009

  45. Scientific Knowledge for Environmental Protection (2011) Nanomaterials in REACH. http://www.steptoe.com/assets/htmldocuments/SKEPP%202011%20Nanomaterials_in_REACH_report_15082011.pdf. Accessed 15 August 2011

  46. FNV (2009) Demands for the safe handling of nanoparticles. http://www.nanocap.eu/Flex/Site/Download2648.pdf?ID=3754. Accessed 25 February 2009

  47. CIEL (2012) Just out of REACH: how REACH is failing to regulate nanomaterials and how it can be fixed. http://www.ciel.org/Publications/Nano_Reach_Study_Feb2012.pdf. Accessed 06 February 2012

  48. EEB (2014) Annual report 2012. http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=E6EF9887-5056-B741-DB89351B012180C6. Accessed July 2014

  49. The Danish Ecological Council (2012) Nanomaterials call-for-action. http://ecocouncil.dk/documents/publikationer/1061-1208-nanomaterials-call-for-action/file. Accessed August 2012

  50. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (2014) Managing the unseen: opportunities and challenges with nanotechnology. http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/sites/default/files/dokument-media/rapporter/Rapport-Nano.pdf. Accessed May 2014

  51. CIEL, ClientEarth, BUND (2012) High time to act on nanomaterials: a proposal for a nano patch. http://www.ciel.org/Publications/Nanopatch_EU_Nov2012.pdf. Accessed November 2014

  52. EEB (2013) Work programme & budget 2014. http://www.eeb.org/?LinkServID=A300041E-5056-B741-DB8B65781E9CF702&showMeta=0&aa. Accessed December 2013

  53. NIA (2012) Leading industry periodical publishes NIA comments on nano-patch proposal. http://www.nanotechia.org/news/nia-press/leading-industry-periodical-publishes-nia-comments-nano-patch-proposal. Accessed 27 November 2012

  54. Ministry of Infrastructure (2012) Nanomaterials policy conference choices for safety. http://rivm.nl/dsresource?type=pdf&disposition=inline&objectid=rivmp:119609&versionid=&subobjectname=. Accessed 09 March 2012

  55. Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (2012) Effective regulation of nanomaterials —comments by Norway. https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/europaportalenimages/2999/innspill_nanomaterialer_23april2012.pdf?id=2314582. Accessed 23 April 2012

  56. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (2012) Note on the safety of nanomaterials. To Mr. J.Potočnik, European Commissioner for Environment

  57. Schlyter C (2012) Second regulatory review of nanomaterials. To Mr. J.Potočnik, European Commissioner for Environment

  58. European Commission (2012) 2nd regulatory review on nanomaterials, COM(2012) 572 final, Brussels

  59. Industry associations (2013) Europe needs safe and innovative nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. http://www.cefic.org/Documents/PolicyCentre/Nanomaterials/Industry-messages-on-nanotechnologies-and-nanomaterials-June2013.pdf. Accessed: 27 June 2013

  60. EEB et al (2012) Stakeholders’ response to the communication on the second regulatory review on nanomaterials. http://www.beuc.eu/publications/2012-00667-01-e.pdf. Accessed 23 October 2012

  61. Hassi S (2013) First reaction to the second regulatory review on nanomaterials. European Commission workshop, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/8128/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native. Accessed 30 January 2013

  62. European Commission (2013) 11th meeting of competent authorities for REACH and CLP. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/caracal/minutes-121128-29_en.pdf. Accessed 16 January 2013

  63. EEB, CIEL, ClientEarth, ECOS, ANEC, BEUC, HCWH Europe (2014) European NGOs position paper on the regulation of nanomaterials. http://www.eeb.org/?LinkServID=61BE4275-5056-B741-DBA4AE7C9E55F239&showMeta=0&aa. Accessed April 2014

  64. Chemical Watch (2014) Sweden presses European Commission on nano proposals: further delays on amendment of REACH annexes. Accessed 26 March 2014

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article is part of a three-year Ph.D. project funded by the China Scholarship Council. Firstly, I would like to warmly thank all of the interviewees who contributed their knowledge and insight to this research. I wish to thank Professor Patrick Chaskiel, who has offered insightful comments on this article. I am also very grateful to the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and inspiring suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information-communication, CERTOP (UMR 5044, CNRS, University of Paul Sabatier—Toulouse 3), 31077, Toulouse cedex 4, France

    Xi Wang

Authors
  1. Xi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xi Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, X. Revisiting “Upstream Public Engagement”: from a Habermasian Perspective. Nanoethics 10, 63–74 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0239-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0239-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation