Engaging the public on Nanoscale

Science & Engineering

- so, how are we doing?

26th October 2010

Kathy SykesProfessor of Sciences and Society

‘Nano’- an exemplar for new approaches to public

engagement in science…

USA - NISE (2005)

UK - Royal Society report (2004) - then public dialogues; ‘Smalltalk’ collaboration

Europe - public dialogues, collaborations

Australia & Worldwide - including public deliberations in policy-making

Some things we’ve been doing differently…

Collaborating Targeting adults Discussing and listening Public deliberations informing policy Working with social scientists

NISE

Forum - evaluation 5 museums, 23 events

– attendee’s knowledge about nano increased– so did their understanding of risks and benefits

After 2 weeks: – 3/4 paid more attention to nano in the media– 2/3 explained to others what they’d learned

NISE

Collaborating across many organisations Targeting adults Discussing and listening Public deliberations informing policy ? Working with social scientists

NISE

Aim:

Foster public awareness, engagement & understanding of nanoscale science, engineering and technology, through fora, programmes, activities, exhibits & a website

NISE

Aim:Foster public awareness, engagement & understanding of nanoscale science, engineering and technology, through fora, programmes, activities, exhibits & a website

Built capacity in science museums in

running deliberative events

Influenced the whole public? ?

NISE

Aim:Foster public awareness, engagement & understanding of nanoscale science, engineering and technology, through fora, programmes, activities, exhibits & a website

Built capacity in science museums in

running deliberative events

Influenced the whole public? ?

Is this the most important thing?

Smalltalk

Science festivals Science centres Royal Institution

Public dialogues with scientists and policy-makers Some big talks with discussion, some small dialogues Collected good practice and public’s opinions Final event - schoolchildren presented hopes and concerns

to Minister in a science centre

Smalltalk - lessons learned

Good facilitation is crucial People enjoyed the direct interaction with experts Use a range of experts: scientists, social scientists,

NGOs, ethicists, media Brief experts well Check any powerpoint presentations ahead of talks Give feedback to participants about what

happened

Researched past science centre dialogues

poor facilitation can sabotage attempts at dialogue

crucial to create a safe place where people can say anything, ask open-ended questions, build on and reflect on their ideas, exchange different opinions, and even find space to change their minds

understand the tentative nature of scientific knowledge

Smalltalk

Collaborating ½ Targeting adults Discussing and listening Public deliberations informing policy ? Working with social scientists ½

Built capacity Helped get scientists listening & discussing

Smalltalk

Other aims:

- Collect public views on nanotechnologies - Try get these views heard by policy-makers ¼

WHY

do you want to engage the public on Nanotechnologies?

WHY?

I love doing it!

helps get peopleexcited about

science / nano

tax-payers shouldknow what their

money is spent on

entice peopleinto science

WHY?

I love doing it!

helps people understand /excited about

science / nano

tax-payers shouldknow what their

money is spent on

entice peopleinto science

helps my research, teaching, communication

& leadership skills

don’t want public to reject

nano

helps make wiserchoices about impact

of nano on society

helps me think through societal/ env

impact of my work

Observation:

CommunicateScience Communication Conference

My own motivations, …an emblematic moment… 17 years ago

My own motivations, …an emblematic moment… 17 years ago

My own experience - PhD 1993

Poly-hydroxybutyrate - Biopol

My own experience - PhD 1993

Poly-hydroxybutyrate - Biopol

My own experience 1994

Science & Society

WHY?

I love doing it!

helps people understand /excited about

science / nano

tax-payers shouldknow what their

money is spent on

entice peopleinto science

helps my research, teaching, communication

& leadership skills

don’t want public to reject

nano

helps make wiserchoices about

impact of nano on society

helps scientists think through societal/ env impact of their work

What is public engagement in science?

Larry Bell, Tiffany Lowater, Ellen McCallie

“mutual learning by publics and scientists – and in some cases, policy-makers”

How are we doing? - focus on changing ourselves, not the public

How are we doing? - focus on changing ourselves, not the public

Are our scientists: getting better at listening to & discussing with the public? reflecting on the impact of their work better?

Are our funders: Considering public hopes & concerns in decision-making? Using public thinking to help make wiser choices?

Influencing decision-making…-Nano Grand Challenge:

Doing public dialogue well…

Need a real decision and real policymakers

Take time - but in time for decisions bring wide range of people (pay if necessary) meet repeatedly

Use range of experts, including scientists employ professional facilitators clear with public the opportunity for input to policy feed back the outcomes

Doing dialogue well…

Ultimately… decisions still need to be made by the policy-makers; dialogue just helps inform and widen their thinking

Influencing decision-making…-Nano Grand Challenge: Prof Richard Jones

Nanotech for:

- Diagnostics- Targeting drug delivery- Drug discovery- Environmental control of pathogens (eg in hospitals)- ‘Theranostics’ for specific diseases (devices diagnosing & administering drugs)- Regenerative medicine

Funder listening to public -Nano Grand Challenge:Prof Richard Jones

Full consultation:

- Web-based consultation- Town meeting with researchers and experts - Public dialogue

What do you think the public didn’t like?

Here’s what some scientists are proposing, what do you think?

Nanotech for: - Diagnostics- Targeting drug delivery- Drug discovery- Environmental control of pathogens (eg in hospitals)- ‘Theranostics’ for specific diseases (devices that diagnose & administer drugs)- Regenerative medicine

What the publicliked and didn’t like:

Nanotech for:

- Diagnostics - Targeting drug delivery - Drug discovery- Environmental control of pathogens (eg in hospitals) - ‘Theranostics’ for specific diseases (devices that diagnose & administer drugs) - Regenerative medicine

-Nano Grand Challenge:

- POSITIVE reactions to technologies that give people more control of health eg early diagnosis; reduced side effects

- NEGATIVE reactions to ‘theranostics’, devices that diagnose & administer treatments; seen as disempowering people

- self cleaning surfaces in hospitals?

What does Richard Jones say about it now?

What does Richard Jones say about it now?

‘We’re reminded of the high standing of scientists & scientific enterprise in our society.

We are prompted to re-examine unspoken assumptions & clarify our aims & objectives.  …strong arguments that public deliberation and interaction can lead to more robust science policy.’

He also changed his team’s research direction

Influencing decision-making…

-What does the funder say about it?

1. Public dialogue MORE useful than

town meetings with scientists

2. Using these kinds of approaches in other areas

- nano as exemplar!

Influencing decision-making…

-What does the funder say about it?

Some things we’ve been doing better…

Collaborating Targeting adults Discussing and listening Public deliberations informing policy Working with social scientists

Built capacity Scientists listening more

BUT…

Smalltalk - what we learned about public attitudes…

‘it’s not grey goo that people worry about, or specific hazards, but rather whether funding will be available to test new products adequately and whether regulation will prevent untested products coming to market’

an assumption that it’s government’s job to establish standards & manufacturer’s job to do the testing.

Smalltalk -Key attitudes to nanotechnology

Generally positive Not wanting the media to ‘highjack’ and polarise the issue People want products to be labeled - want consumer choice People want public to be kept informed & involved ‘safe’ - assumed to mean all risks are identified &

eliminated People not very concerned about specific risks but about

regulation that will be relied on to deal with any risks

Narratives for NanotechAnticipating public reactions to nanotechnologies

Chris Toumey, University of South Carolina

People tell myths, not because they need to reconstruct a true record of past events, but rather because they need to retroactively justify certain conditions in the present. The telling of myths gives legitimacy to current circumstances…

… and so myths seem to be a record of past events, but they are really a reflection of the present situation’

Malinowski (1948)

Narratives for NanotechChris Toumey, University of South Carolina

Cold Fusion and recombinant DNA – lessons:

In anticipating public reactions, focus on:

1. What risks will scientists and engineers create?2. Will they assume responsibility for those risks?3. How will they mitigate the risks?4. Will they candidly describe those risks and their own

responsibilities for generating them?5. How will the public assess the risks & the experts

creating them?

Narratives for NanotechChris Toumey, University of South Carolina

‘A little bit of recklessness or disdain will be easily magnified and transmuted into a compelling story about amoral scientists arrogantly producing terribly dangerous threats to our health and environment.’

Royal Society Report (2004) & public dialogues

‘properties of materials can be different at the nanoscale:

- relatively larger surface area … more chemically reactive (inert materials can be reactive when in nanoscale form)

- quantum effects can begin to dominate the behaviour of

matter - affecting the optical, electrical and magnetic behaviour of materials.

Royal Society Report (2004) & public dialogues

‘Concerns have been expressed that the very properties of nanoscale particles being exploited in certain applications… might also have negative health and environmental impacts’

…If nanoparticles penetrate the skin they might facilitate the production of reactive molecules that could lead to cell damage…

…It also seems likely that nanoparticles will penetrate cells more readily than larger particles…

…Few studies have been published on the effects of inhaling free manufactured nanoparticles

Council for Science and Technology 2007Review of progress after 3 years…

Government has not made sufficient progress …in the last 5 years only:

- £3m spent on toxicology & health & environmental impacts

- £40m/annum given by EPSRC to drive forward nano progress

- £90m over 6 years, Department of Trade & Industry to commercialise

The balance between research that develops new applications of

nanotechnologies and that which provides the necessary underpinning

for its safe and responsible development must be addressed'.

Council for Science and Technology 2009Another review of progress after another 2 years…

Nano - products

Tennis rackets Nano- pants Suntan lotions Face creams Sprays to coat windows / cars

Benny the Bear Plush Toy

David Rejeski, DirectorProject on Emerging Nanotechnologies

‘Recently updated our inventory of manufacturer-identified, nanotech-enabled consumer products

… number of products doubled within just 14 months, to 580, … many new entries targeted clearly at children (& parents)

17th Oct 2007

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

– Nano Silver Baby Mug Korea – Nano Silver Anti-Bacterial Baby Bottle Brush Taiwan– Nano Pacifier Taiwan– Nano Silver Teeth Developer Taiwan– Nano Finger Toothbrush

Taiwan

David Rejeski, Director

Face cream:

– “Blue Lizard Baby - Chemical free formula,

SPF 30 formulated in Australia using the newest

Nanotechnological ingredients to meet the

world’s toughest sunscreen standards…

Australia’s and yours!”

Face creams:

– …The elements of Collamin_G™ are approximately 200-500 times smaller than a single pore of the skin, which means that approximately 200-500 elements penetrate the skin through a single pore at one time.”

Maternal Water Company:

“Especially for baby and mom in the gestation period, our water is no chemical treatment, we use the technology of nano colloidal silver ion”

“Nanotrim™ is comprised of the most powerful, nano-engineered medicinal botanicals available and contains

no chemically generated compounds or fillers. Your body recognizes Nanotrim™ as food. Nanotrim™ is 100% safe and natural and will cause NO negative side effects.”“The nanoscaled, all-natural ingredients in Nanotrim™ have been proven to dramatically improve cellular health and the burning of fat for energy.”

Benny the Bear Plush Toy

by Pure Plushy – China

”… these products make use of nano-scale silver, a highly potent anti-microbial. We do not test these products so we have no way of verifying these claims, or assessing the potential risks, but it is probably worth asking some questions about their safety & asking:

"Who is in charge of testing these products and making sure that they do not present risks to children, especially products that go directly into the mouth?”

David Rejeski, Director

RecentToxicologyStudy (Sep, 2010)

‘Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles

are manufactured

worldwide and used in

many everyday products,

including cosmetics, sun

- creams, food supplements, paints and pharmaceuticals.

Although previously considered non-toxic, recent studies

suggest that these nanoparticles can induce cytotoxicity and

genotoxicity in cell lines as well as tumourigenesis in some

animal models (Huang et al 2008).’

Chat with toxicologist

Do you use suntan lotions containing Titanium Dioxide nanoparticles?

Chat with toxicologist

“The technology is going at such a fast pace; the risk assessments are being left way behind.

You’d have thought we’d have learned from experiences with Asbestos.”

How are you feeling?

US funding…

2011: US government intend to spend:

- $1.76 billion - nanotech R&D- $117 million - EHS (Risk) research- $35 million - "education and social dimensions”(NISE Net, Centers for Nanotechnology in Society ASU & UCSB)

2005:- $1.2 bn - R&D- $35 m - EHS (Risk) R&D- $33 m - education, ethical, legal & other social dimensions

Some things we’ve been doing better…

Collaborating across many organisations Targeting adults Discussing and listening Public deliberations informing policy Working with social scientists Built capacity

Science Cafes…to include more scientists:

2 short presentations Involve many scientists and experts, younger ones

too

small conversations around tables; at least one scientist, and another kind of expert per table helps make it less scary for scientists makes conversations less ‘top down’

Plenary at end; people have had time to reflect & discuss

‘Landscapes of nanohyperbole’

Chris Toumey, University of South Carolina

Nano-philia Nano-optimism Measured skepticism Nano-phobia

‘Some of the concern is so shrill that it polarises discussions… between extreme nanophilic and extreme nanophobic, thereby erasing the more nuanced ideologies in between’

Narratives for NanotechAnticipating public reactions to nanotechnologies

Chris Toumey, University of South CarolinaMyth-telling… 1. arises in tense circumstances, eg when one group has

to justify its treatment of another, times of profound historic change

2. gives a convincing account of the past; but it not answerable to accurate record of events

3. instead, it reflects conditions and problems in the present – reconfigures past to serve present

4. justifies, legitmises, rationalises current circumstances. An exercise to come to terms with present-day tensions

Malinowski (1948)

Narratives for NanotechChris Toumey, University of South Carolina

Cold Fusion and recombinant DNA – lessons:

1. Techno-hyperbole backfire: techno-philic hyperbole inspires the opposite reaction; techno-phobic hyperbole. Frightening if small groups of unknown, elite experts control powerful tools

underway

2. Malinowski conditions: nano probably has these, so expect myths that help people come to terms with anomaly, conflict and change. Don’t expect a dispassionate appreciation

conditions present

3. Disdain for public health and safety conditions: learn from rDNA story: don’t ignore or underestimate risks to the public.

Narratives for NanotechChris Toumey, University of South Carolina

Balance between Science and Cultural Values

‘Nanotechnology will be appreciated or feared, not because of its scientific merits, but because of pre-existing extra-scientific values…

Our political system offers numerous ways for non scientists to influence science policy, for better or for worse, and when they do, they will incorporate their own cultural values into our nanotechnology policy.’

Europe views of Science in Society

European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potočnik

‘We have learnt that we need to go further than approaches such as: "This is the research that was done and this is how it could benefit you," or "This is what science or research looks like, isn't it exciting?" We need to bring the public into the debate and welcome challenging responses such as "yes, but" or "what if?" or even "no, no but what about…?”

…we need to listen actively to the diverse range of views expressed and we need to take account of those views.’

Europe views of Science in Society

European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potočnik

… This is why in recent years the Commission has placed increasing emphasis on truly participatory process for engaging the public, NGOs and other independent bodies alongside the research community to agree a common way forward in areas of genuine public concern such as nanotechnology, neuroscience and biotechnology.

 

Europe views of Science in Society

European Commissioner for Science and Research Janez Potočnik

 ‘It is not about losing or gaining control; it is about sharing democratic

responsibility and ownership – the need to involve all parties from the beginning and to involve them all in the process of determining the best way forward…

Recent Toxicology Papers

Nanoparticles can cause DNA damage across a cellular barrier.

Bhabra G et al, Case CP.Nat Nanotechnol. 2009 Dec;4(12):876-83.2.

Thresholds for indirect DNA damage across cellular barriers for orthopaedic biomaterials

Parry MC et al Case CP.Biomaterials. 2010 Jun;31(16):4477-83. Epub 2010 Mar 15.