Final Report at 14 April 2012

Independent Reviewof the Australian Government ‘National Enabling Technologies Strategy’ (NETS)Public Awareness Community Engagement Programme (PACE)

Prepared by Mr Toss Gascoigne and Dr Karen Cronin

for the

Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education

List of Contents

1. Background to the Review and Terms of Reference..............................................3

2. Methods used by the Review Panel.......................................................................5

3. Summary of key findings........................................................................................7

4. Recommendations for future public engagement programmes............................12

5. Appendices:

A. Detailed assessment of materials and activities provided to Review..............14

B. Draft Terms of Reference for the Review.......................................................31

C. Amendments to Terms of Reference..............................................................34

D. Biographical notes on reviewers.....................................................................36

1 Background to the Review and Terms of Reference

The National Enabling Technologies Strategy (NETS) was launched by the government of Australia in February 2010 and is being implemented by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE). The strategy included a Public Awareness and Community Engagement section (PACE) to contribute to the department’s strategic priority of “increased awareness of science and research in the community and increased commercialisation by increasing sustainability and commercialisation in niche innovation industries.”1 The objective of the PACE is to “increase the Australian public’s awareness, knowledge and understanding of enabling technologies, including the risks and benefits, to enable a more informed public debate, and to gain an increased understanding of the public issues to feed into policy development.”2 The government established a Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) in 2011 under the NETS.3

The Strategy document includes the following section on Engaging with the Public:

The Strategy’s public awareness and community engagement program will increase public understanding of enabling technologies and issues surrounding them, and increase understanding of public concerns and aspirations by technology developers and in policy formulation. The main elements of the program will be:

Community engagement – multiple channels will be utilised to provide opportunities for diverse members of the public to engage in discussions on enabling technologies, including proposed policy approaches designed to improve the technologies’ management and regulation.

Public attitude research – qualitative and quantitative research will be used to underpin activities and evaluate the success of the program.

Education – school resources will continue to be developed, supported by teacher professional development and demonstrations, in both metropolitan and regional areas.

Information exchange – to understand the information needs of different groups, provide balanced and factual information in appropriate formats, and seek feedback for improved information provision.

This program will also link to relevant initiatives such as those that may be put in place under the National Science Communications Strategy, and will work co-operatively with international bodies also undertaking similar public awareness and engagement activities, such as the OECD.4

Following concerns raised by some NGOs, and on the recommendation of the NETS Stakeholder Advisory Council, the NETS-PACE office commissioned this independent review in 2011. The purpose of the review is to:

1 Extract from DIISR divisional business plan in documents supplied to the Review Panel “Comments in response [to] the Review of the NETS-PACE programs”(p.10)2 ibid3 The Stakeholder Advisory Council is an independent body established under the National Enabling Technologies Strategy to advise government on issues that may arise in the development or use of enabling technologies in Australia and activities that could be undertaken under the Strategy to address these issues. Members include non-government organisations, union, consumer groups, the research community and industry. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/NationalEnablingTechnologiesStrategy/Pages/NETSStakeholderAdvisoryCouncil1stmeeting.aspx4 Extract from NETS (p.8) retrieved 2 April 2012 from http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/NationalEnablingTechnologiesStrategy/Documents/NETS_booklet.pdf

1) undertake an independent assessment of the NETS-PACE or DIISRTE-initiated or part-funded materials during the period 2007-2011. This will include a representative sample of education, engagement and awareness materials; school curriculum or education materials for teachers; brochures, postcards and toys; website fact sheets; and blogs such as TechNYou. The review should include those materials most widely distributed or accessed as well as a sample of other materials;

2) undertake and independent assessment of a representative sample of NETS-PACE or DIISRTE-initiated or part-funded engagement activities during the period 2007-2011. This should include both public events and forums, and those targeted at particular stakeholders or interest groups, for example journalists or industry;

3) develop key principles to guide the development of new events and materials; and

4) provide a short report with findings and recommendations for any changes or improvements to events and materials to the DIISRTE and for consideration and advice to the Minister.

A full copy of the Terms of Reference is included in the appendices.

Two independent reviewers were appointed by DIISRTE in September 2011. A package of review materials was sent to the Review Panel in October 2011 for first reading. In addition we were provided with a background document from DIISRTE titled “Comments in response to the Review of the NETS-PACE programs”. The panel met with officials of the NETS PACE office in DIISRTE in Canberra in December 2011 to scope out the review process and discuss the draft Terms of Reference. The reviewers expressed concern about the extensiveness of the review tasks as set out, including the call for detailed evaluations, numerical and qualitative analyses of some materials and events including costs, and audience preferences etc. This would require a full scale evaluation programme involving interviews and other data analysis that were beyond the scope of this review. Additionally, some items had already been evaluated by other reviewers. The panellists also raised concerns about their ability [given their expertise and the limited time provided] to address some items in the ToR such as health and environmental risks as reflected in current scientific literature, factual correctness, regulatory gaps and educational content/curriculum relevance. The panel understood its review should focus on best practice in science communication and public engagement, in order to inform future public engagement initiatives. [A fuller outline of the approach taken by the reviewers is presented below.] The panellists outlined the approach they proposed to take in regards to all the items in the draft Terms of Reference in a letter sent to the Department on 30 January 2012 – see appendix.

On completion, we understand that this Review Panel report will be sent to the Stakeholder Advisory Council and the Minister of Science. We hope it may also contribute to the implementation of the new community engagement framework ‘Science & Technology Engagement Pathways’ (STEP) being developed now by DIISRTE.

2 Methods used by the Review Panel

An extensive package of information materials was initially provided to the reviewers. It contained 56 items including reports, sample materials and supporting documentation. After the scoping meeting in December 2011 this was refined into a selected set of published materials and event information. Particular items of concern to members of the SAC were included. In addition, we invited the SAC to identify any particular items that they wanted us to consider. In total 22 items were assessed by the Review Panel. Some were simple documents or publicity materials; others were multi-document reports containing up to 8 separate items. On the advice of DIISRTE, some items outside the review period of 2007-11 or not directly produced by NETS PACE were excluded from our assessment.

Our approach to this review was developed after consideration of the following:

- the relevant academic literature on evaluating public engagement programmes

- the ‘Public Participation Spectrum’ developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)

- the IAP2 Australasia statement of ‘Core Values’.

Evaluation is a complex professional task which uses various methodologies, many of which require before and after interventions [with the sponsors, organisers, facilitators and participants of an event] in order to generate valid and comparable data. For this exercise, we have not been able to conduct an evaluation in this formal sense, but instead have conducted an expert review using our professional judgement. Our focus has been to assess the information provided in terms of best practice in public engagement and to address the concerns raised about possible “bias, incompleteness or inaccuracy” in the NETS-PACE events and materials. Our approach was informed by our expertise and experience in: communication and public awareness strategies, science and risk communication, science policy and regulation, risk management, Science Technology and Society (STS) studies and social discourse analysis, translating complex science into material for a lay audience, and organising public events. These approaches framed the way we went about our review task and interpreted the materials we had been given.

Our method involved both panellists independently reading all the materials provided and preparing their separate assessments based on “fairness, impartiality, and representative of the concerns about potential dangers held by some groups as well as the potential benefits.”

Three teleconference meetings were held to compare our respective findings and produce a combined assessment– see appendix. We have included comments on each item reviewed and suggestions for future practice. On comparison we found that our assessments coincided in all but a few instances, and the reasons for these differences are noted in the detailed assessment in the Appendix.

The list of items reviewed is below:

A. Public Engagement Activities

1A NETS-PACE public engagement framework project – multistakeholder process

2A Communicating science and risk through social media – Media 140

3A What are the big Issues about small technologies

4A Nanodialogues - engaging with the unengaged

5A 2008 Social Inclusion and Community Engagement Workshop

6A Nanotechnology public forums

B. Publications

1B New Technologies for your Changing Future

2B Nanotechnology Regulations Brochure

3B Take a closer look at the issues Avant Card

4B Journey into the Nano world - CSIRO fold up

5B Nanotechnology Avant Card ‘Does size really matter?’

C. Items raised by Members of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee2C. The synthetic biology “genome jenga” post card (2011)

3C. Nanotechnology and foods” fact sheet (2009)

4C. “Nanotechnologies in the workplace” fact sheet (2009)

6C. “New Technologies for a changing climate” brochure (2010)

7C. ”Nanotechnologies Teacher Information” CSIRO/DIISR (2010)

9C. The ‘space elevator” and “personal care products” modules for high school teaching from the Access Nano Program (2008)

10C. TechNYou blog “Nanotech: Overheated promises and hot air” (2010)

15C. Nanotechnology – working with the smallest things” July 2008 Australian Government

4B Journey into the Nano world – 4 page brochure

7A Nanotechnology evaluation of the brochure

3 Summary of key findings

This section of the report highlights the key findings of the review. It should be read alongside the full assessment detailed in the appendix.

3.1 General comments

The suite of materials and events covered a wide range of activities over several years, going back to 2007 and up to 2011. In this time there has clearly been an attempt to use a wide range of science communication approaches and delivery styles. Considerable effort has been put into organising events, publishing, and news media items, and linking in with other science, education, policy and professional groups. This has included traditional methods such as fact sheets and new approaches e.g. social media and novel engagements with the public.

It is our observation that some of the more recent deliverables are closer to what would be regarded as ‘best practice public engagement’ than the earlier items. There has been an evolution in thinking about public engagement in many countries – moving from a ‘deficit’ approach to the public understanding of science towards a stakeholder engagement approach which opens up opportunities for dialogue and deliberation. This change is reflected in the more recent initiatives taken by NETS-PACE - notably the multi stakeholder engagement programme and the proposed STEP engagement framework - and is to be commended.

Further progress needs to be made however to translate this growing appreciation of best practice engagement into deliverables that will work effectively in the social and policy context of the NETS. In particular more attention needs to be given to clarifying the objectives for public awareness and public engagement which can, in turn, provide a coherent framework for a future strategy. Clearer definitions of the following terms would be helpful in the design of future strategies for: information, engagement, dialogue and deliberation. Objectives for raising awareness, providing information and publicising new science and technologies need to be distinguished from objectives for public participation and engagement. Specifically, science promotion strategies need to be distinguished from stakeholder engagement strategies, if there is to be genuine stakeholder dialogue and deliberative input to decision-making. Because information/awareness materials ‘set the scene’ for stakeholder engagement strategies, it is important that neutral information is used throughout the entire programme to create a clear message for audiences and participants.

3.2 Assessment of specific communication events and materials

Our combined assessment is set out in the detailed comments in the appendix. Most of the items we reviewed were found to be generally acceptable in terms of what would be regarded as ‘best practice public engagement’, but with aspects of their design or delivery where improvement is needed. Several items were found to be below the standard that would be generally accepted as best practice. Some items were seen as representing best practice but the reviewers were not in agreement on all details. [Where there was a difference between our assessments, both views are included]. In summary, this sample of event and publication materials suggests that the programme is evolving, particularly through the development of the STEP framework which will provide direction to improve the design and outcomes of public engagement programmes by NETS–PACE in future

3.3 Discussion of findings

The key issue that has emerged in this review is the lack of clarity around the strategic communication objectives for the PACE programme. This, in turn, has led to some contradictory aims and methods, resulting in mixed messages and frustration among some key stakeholders.

A clearer definition is required of the purpose and principles of ‘public awareness’ and ‘public engagement’. ‘Awareness’ programmes are generally about drawing attention to a new project or proposal. With an emerging area of science such as nanotechnology, which has generated a range of scientific and public responses internationally, it is important for awareness programmes to be balanced to enable people to develop their understanding and form their views. Public awareness programmes are therefore distinguishable from ‘science promotion’ programmes which are designed to promote a new idea and generate enthusiasm interest and support in the target audience. Some science promotion programmes go further and are deliberately designed to ‘manage’ public audiences i.e. to change views and behaviour (e.g. promoting the uptake of energy efficient appliances). ‘Public engagement’ is a different process from ‘public awareness’ and sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from ‘science promotion’ or ‘managing public opinion’. There is a substantive international literature in this field and in our view this could be drawn on more effectively for the future design of events and materials for the NETS-PACE. This is starting to happen with the draft STEP framework, which deservedly received recognition in the recent IAP2 award.

In reviewing the suite of items in the whole review period [2007-2011, we observe that the approach to date has been, understandably, shaped by policies originally laid down by the government in the KPIs for the PACE section of the NETS5, including:

- Increasing awareness and understanding among the general public about enabling technologies and their potential risks and benefits

- Promoting an informed public debate through improved awareness and understanding of social and ethical issues regarding the use of enabling technologies

- Gaining better understanding of public’s knowledge, concerns and aspirations about enabling technologies

- Providing the public with timely updates on the Government’s response to emerging enabling technology issues; and

- Creating public awareness and understanding of Australian regulatory bodies and practices concerning enabling technologies and related health and safety issues.

On reflection, these KPIs embody contrasting objectives for communication programme design. In our assessment, the PACE may have inclined more towards providing information and increasing public understanding of enabling technologies, than towards public engagement based on two-way communication, dialogue and deliberation. The principles outlined in the STEP framework – which we will comment on further below – provide a stronger alignment with internationally recognised best practice in public engagement. Clarifying the underlying strategic direction for the PACE programme is an important issue which might be discussed more fully with the SAC. Internationally, the trend is not only towards two way communication but also towards upstream public engagement to ensure more effective opportunities for stakeholder input to policy goals and investment priorities, and to support participatory and anticipatory technology assessment.

5 Taken from the Divisional Business Plan, as cited in Comments in Response to the Review of the NETS PACE programs, p. 10

A second strategic objective is to clarify how the programme can deal with the conflicting values and assessments of enabling technologies held by different stakeholder groups, including scientists. All around the world, the issue of nanotechnology has generated intense debate. Officials in policy and regulatory agencies must attempt to deal with multiple stakeholder perspectives while implementing government objectives. This can create challenges in designing an effective communication programme. The debate around nanotechnology fits the classic definition of a ‘post normal science situation’ i.e. there is uncertainty around some of the science and its impacts, and there are high social, environmental and ethical and political stakes surrounding its introduction. How might a public awareness and community engagement programme work most effectively in this context? In our view, when there are substantive issues around impacts and values, an over reliance on information and promotion strategies may be less effective than stakeholder engagement strategies. If the underlying issues in the debate are not dealt with overtly, this can lead to reduced trust and acceptance rather than increased public confidence. In terms of communication effort, it is therefore inefficient to attempt to deal with a fundamental risk dispute by ‘shoehorning’ it into information/promotion campaign. It is well documented in the literature that traditional risk communication approaches - predicated on anticipating resistance and shaping public opinion to prevent rejection of some new technologies – have proven less than effective. Newer approaches are being tried, based on embracing the differences in a technology risk dispute and seeking opportunities to find common ground and thereby enhance technology innovation. In particular, if the opportunity is taken early enough a stakeholder dialogue process can highlight those technologies that will satisfy the value criteria of most stakeholders, and avoid costly disputes and litigation downstream.6 In our view, much of the apparent tension surrounding the design of [some of] the NETS PACE materials and events may be attributed to a lack of resolution of these underlying issues. Future progress in the programme may be enhanced if there is a stronger platform created for dialogical and deliberative forms of engagement.

Having now commented on the individual items we reviewed and on the strategic objectives for engagement, we offer some generic observations on the approach taken to date in the NETS PACE. We wish to acknowledge the newly established STEP Principles and have therefore used this as a guide in making our final comments, as follows:

1. Commitment and Integrity

The review found varying levels of commitment and integrity to the materials and events produced under the program, including mechanisms for transparency and accountability. Specific suggestions for the future have been detailed in Appendix A below.

2. Clarity of objectives and scope

The aims and objectives of the overall programme appear to work against each other. Clearer definitions of ‘awareness’, ‘information’, ‘engagement’ and ‘dialogue’ are needed. ‘Information’ and ‘engagement’ can be done together, but in all instances must be supported by neutral materials. An over reliance on information and promotion creates a challenge when there is clearly a dispute about risk. The STEP process appeals as a process for working through these issues in future.

6 See for example Gregory, R. et al 2001 Decision Aiding, Not Dispute Resolution: creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol 20. No3 415-42. And Rauschmayer, F. and Wittmer, H. (2006) Evaluating deliberative and analytic methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 23 108-122.

3. Inclusiveness

The activities to date have been reasonably inclusive, in terms of the involving people with a diversity of backgrounds and views, but some gaps are noted - see the Appendix.

4. Good process

The reviewers noted a steady rise in quality and balance in the materials and events undertaken over the period of the Program. This reflects the pioneering nature of some these activities and the paucity of ‘best practice’ guidelines. Some operational improvements are noted in the Appendix.

5. Quality information/ Knowledge sharing

A range of information has been provided by the programme, with a refreshing willingness to experiment with a number of forms: postcards, newspaper inserts, blogs, fact sheets etc. There was more emphasis on information provision than knowledge sharing among multiple stakeholders in the earlier materials. Our assessment has commented extensively on individual items, and these comments are in Appendix A below.

6. Dialogue and open discussion

The STEP process is a positive move to establishing an open and transparent dialogue. Much appears to have been learnt from earlier attempts at generating open discussion.

7. Impact on decision making

Engagement processes need to take place prior or at the same time as policies are determined, rather than after policies have been put in place. This requires a willingness by the policy-makers to listen to views emerging from public consultations and to demonstrate how stakeholder input has been included.

3.4 Response to questions in the Terms of Reference

Having reviewed the package of individual materials provided, and considered the strategic communication issues, we now offer our responses to the 5 questions set out in the Terms of Reference for this Review. The Review Panel was asked to investigate whether or not:

i. materials embody the assumption or communicate the view that nanotechnology development should be promoted by government; Response: Clearly the government has a commitment to implementing the NETS and promoting the development and uptake of nanoscience and nanotechnology [See website text on National Enabling Technologies Strategy: Using technology for a better future 7]. This is apparent in the materials reviewed. At the same time the NETS includes a “Public Awareness and Engagement Program … to inform the public on enabling technologies” 8 and acknowledges that “a balance needs to be found that manages the risks and impacts while ensuring that the benefits can be obtained” (NETS, p.3).

7 Cited from Government Website http://www.innovation.gov.au/INDUSTRY/NANOTECHNOLOGY/NATIONALENABLINGTECHNOLOGIESSTRATEGY/Pages/NationalEnablingTechnologiesStrategyUsingtechnologyforabetterfuture.aspx8 Cited from Government Website http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/PublicAwarenessandEngagement/Pages/default.aspx

ii. the full range of stakeholder views, including critical views, is reflected, including in relation to issues that extend beyond toxicity risks (e.g. in relation to ethics, privacy, energy demands of nanomaterials manufacture, military applications etc); Response: Some of the materials and events convey a wider range of stakeholder views than others. Some of the event facilitators and presenters may have been seen by some audiences as supporting a communication focus on ‘science promotion’ rather than on ‘deliberative dialogue’. Some of the items make only brief reference to scientific research and public concerns about potential health and environment risks. There is little in the materials about ethical, cultural or privacy issues.

iii. description of health and environment risks reflects accurately the current state of the science;Response: the review panel is not qualified to comment on the current state of the science, but was concerned that this information should be drawn on more effectively in future communication materials and events. One way to deliberate on this information may be to facilitate interactive learning seminars on nano-risk science and on the design of nano regulations, with science, policy and other interested stakeholders.

iv. existing regulatory gaps are identified accurately, including where existing regulatory triggers or labelling requirements may not differentiate between bulk and nano-forms of a substance;Response. Again the review panel is not qualified to comment on the state of regulatory gaps or labelling. This is a policy matter. As noted above, there may be future opportunities for interactive stakeholder engagement in the review and/or design of nano regulations.

v. comparable treatment and certainty of language is used to describe both fears as well as hopes for nanotechnology’s positive and negative impacts on health, environment, society and economy.Response. The review panel found that the language and text [and process design] used in some of the materials and events could have been more carefully balanced. This derives from what we see as a lack of clarity about the strategic purpose of materials i.e. promotional information or neutral inputs to dialogic deliberation?

4 Recommendations for future public engagement programmes

This NETS- PACE programme is operating in challenging territory. The science is not settled, the risks are still a matter of some debate in scientific circles, there are significant values involved, and regulatory practices at a national and workplace level may have to adapt to cope with the new materials.

The task of NETS-PACE is to inform the public about the new technologies, their potential and the ways they are currently being employed; and carry back to policy makers any concerns the public has, which may in turn affect the way the new technologies are regulated.

The primary purpose of the Review was to assess whether materials and events produced to date have been balanced, fair, and represented the concerns about potential dangers held by some groups as well as the potential benefits. This we have done in assessing each of the events and publications - and detailed comments are set out in the Appendix.

NETS-PACE has used a range of conventional and pioneering techniques to inform the community and allow community members to ask questions and express their views. These techniques have not always been completely effective or balanced, in a range of sampled activities and publications listed below, but in general terms the problems with balance have receded as the programme has matured.

As well as these detailed comments on individual events and publications, the reviewers list below six key principles to guide a strategic process for the development of future events and materials. These should be read in conjunction with the detailed comments on the individual items considered in the review process.

4.1 Address the science debates

The first principle is that information/promotion approaches cannot resolve the underlying science debates. Until these are addressed, all communication materials should recognise the uncertainties and the potential risks of nanotechnology. The programme should identify standard messages for inclusion in all published material, and pre-test the wording on a range of audiences and with members of the Consultative Committee.

4.2 Clarity of purpose

The second principle is that materials and events need to have a clear sense of purpose and process which both the participants and the organisers understand. Several of the items reviewed blurred the line between consultation and promotion, and others left participants wondering about the agenda of the day. Additionally, the objectives for the overall programme require greater clarity and transparency. The approach should be informed by clearer definitions of ‘awareness’, ‘information’, engagement’, ‘dialogue’ and ‘deliberation’.

4.3 Early engagement

The third principle is that meaningful public consultation begins early in the process of considering new technologies, and not after substantive policy decisions have been made. The public will quickly lose trust if they see the consultation is too late to allow any changes.

4.4 Engaging experts

The fourth principle is that appropriate expertise should be engaged to help shape and devise public engagement exercises. This would help processes such as the moderation of meetings, creating opportunities for genuine dialogue, framing of questions, and the wording of publications and event materials.

4.5 Pre-testing publications

The fifth principle is that all publications and event materials should be tested before release, to ensure that the messages are clear and that the contents have an appropriate balance between the potential possibilities and the potential problems. Testing should be with target audiences as well as members of the Committee.

4.6 Building in evaluation

The sixth principle is to build in evaluation, both at the time of program design as well as at subsequent review points.

Appendix A Combined assessments of the review panel.

Each item is considered in terms of:

‘Assessment of fairness, impartiality , and representative of the concerns about potential dangers held by some groups as well as the potential benefits’

Comments, recommendations, suggestions for the future

A. Public Engagement Activities

A NETS-PACE public engagement framework project – multistakeholder process

Assessment: Broadly fair. Some concerns from participants and the reviewer about representativeness and impartiality during some stages of the process.

The final product of this 18 month long, multi stakeholder process i.e. the production of the STEP Framework document [including principles], is a good outcome. Noting the evaluation report by Dr Janet Salisbury, it is clear that while much of the process was positive some aspects could have been better managed.

The process achieved substantially successful outcomes – ‘the first important steps have been achieved’ - in a challenging environment on three counts:

1. These are contentious areas of debate2. The norm for policy discussions in Australia seems to be antagonistic, to the point where civilised

debate is difficult; and3. People with significant differences of opinion were involved

Some areas for potential improvement were identified in the review (Chatham House rules, lack of clarity in the purpose, unbalanced groups, a misjudged ‘science-show’ style presentation – but these were matters of management rather than reflecting any bias towards one view or another.

For the future: The commitment to involving stakeholders in designing a process and principles for future community engagement on ‘enabling technologies’ governance is progressive and is to be commended. An underlying problem is that the evaluation of this programme and some of the key design elements were only initiated part way through. More importantly, the programme is coming into play after the NETS has already been put in place by government. The opportunity to influence policy and funding decisions and technology outcomes is therefore limited. Additionally, any engagement process needs to be assessed in terms of the relationships generated and the ‘social capital’ created in community engagement in science and technology. There were significant issues of trust and transparency raised during the process which now have to be addressed in future programmes. The open-discussion the organisers developed does carry some inherent risks, and these may not always be able to be eliminated. It will be interesting to see how the subsequent Stakeholder Advisory Council [is this the same as the proposed STEP Engagement Group?] contributes and responds to the draft STEP framework document and future engagement initiatives. The engagement methods aimed at involving decision makers and enhancing decision making [as indicated in the early 2010 STEP pamphlet] provide a valuable platform for the future. This was recognised when the initiative was awarded the IAP2 Project of the Year in 2011. It should be noted though, that the open-discussion process the organisers developed does carry some inherent risks, and these may not always be able to be eliminated.

2A Communicating science and risk through social media – Media 140

Assessment: Fair.

It was useful to present a range of opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of relying on social media for science communication. Still, only 3% of audiences are participating in Twitter [according to one panellist]. There are in-built biases, in that it is used more frequently by some sections of the

community and not at all by others. As long as the material is fairly represented, these (largely age-based) biases should not be regarded as unfair. This event was not about novel technologies as such - the focus was on the use of social media by science journalists. This was squarely in the ‘science communication’ realm i.e. getting the science ‘out there’, and not ‘science and society dialogue’. Some useful points were made however, about the role of journalists as neutral reporters in the print or broadcast media, and their personal opinions in the blogo-sphere and if this undermines journalistic integrity.

For the future: There are in-built biases, in that this medium is used more frequently by some sections of the community and not at all by others. As long as the material is fairly represented, these (largely age-based) biases should not be regarded as unfair. Despite apparent interactivity between journalists and/or scientists and their followers, there are some apparent real limitations on relying on this communication channel e.g. unreliability of a thread of posts, people don’t read original material, genuine discussion and content compromised by chatter and counting followers. As one panellist commented: what is the point of being caught up in this obsessive “bubble”? But trends in social media are so strong it would be a mistake to ignore it. Social media should be in the communication tool kit, but tools should be selected in the context of an overall communication strategy with well thought out goals, messages and channels for communication, and including opportunities for one way and two way exchange. If one were to commit to a truly interactive stakeholder strategy, what social media would one use? See new e applications in deliberative democracy noted at this website: http://www.deliberativedemocracy.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=135

3A What are the big Issues about small technologies

Assessment: Broadly fair but with some limitations.

A Public Forum organised as part of international conference on nanoscience/tech, used the ‘Hypothetical’ format involving a scenario on the development of a new cancer diagnostic involving ingestible nanodevices. This event tended towards reinforcing a priori assumptions about nanotech and limiting critical perspectives to some degree e.g. selection of public panellists limited by recruitment through newspaper ads. Most participants and audience members were those at the nanotech conference itself, with the public panel selected with mildly pro nanotech stance. While this may have reflected a reported public demographic it would have served to entrench a narrow range of views. More diversity would have opened up the discussion. Having said that, the discussants Tom Faunce and Kristin Alford provided contrasting opinions and raised wider issues e.g. the opportunity costs/ priorities for science investment, and the unknown, long term or systemic effects on the environment. The hypothetical format can be a good one, and the scenario twist with news of a similar product causing the death of lab mice was productive. But the scenario in the clinical tests with the ‘genitals of patients turning purple’ seemed trivial and may have undermined the process to some degree.

The participant feedback of two-thirds positive, one-third negative reflects the difficulties of this format. It should be remembered that Geoffrey Robertson’s original Hypotheticals ran as live events for nearly 4 hours, before being edited down to 50 minutes of highlights, and that they don’t necessarily work as a live performance. The process of allowing a discussion between experts and the public is a good concept, but to work as an event it needs to be shorter, be clearly defined (so the audience knows what it’s getting) and have fewer participants so they all have a chance to be heard. Consideration might be given to finding an articulate opponent on the expert panel.

For the future: Based on the original BBC programme, ‘Hypothetical’ is a good process in that it gets real people from a range of stakeholder roles talking about real technology scenarios [or what should be likely scenarios] in an engaging format. A number of important issues were surfaced at this event, but where do they go next? As with some of the other scientist – public encounters noted above, it might be asked if the technology case study was selected for this event for its potential perceived benefits e.g. saving human lives through cancer research, rather than more confronting technologies where the risks and benefits are more complex e.g. nano food.

What was the overall outcome? People with different points of view were brought together, and aspects raised and canvassed but not necessarily analysed or resolved. Some participants apparently

expected a ‘forum’ and then encountered the ‘hypothetical’ format. The event was informative and entertaining but not necessarily dialogic or deliberative.

Thinking about PACE as a whole, is a patchwork of different event formats useful, or should a more strategic process be used to build up an engaged multi stakeholder group and lead them through a series of encounters that allow time for information to be presented and absorbed and for a more authentic dialogue to emerge which can then provide some substantive guidance to technology investment and governance decisions?

The sense at the end of this event is that the scientist wants to move ahead but regulations are ‘getting in the way’. Meanwhile, the regulators are reliant on standard ‘risk benefit’ procedures but have to make decisions which may not capture all the information e.g. long term or unknown effects. This leaves the public relying on a ‘regulatory shield’ but which may leave complex technical and ethical/strategic dimensions of technology impacts unexplored. The regulatory setting is not the place to explore or resolve these wider questions. This illustrates the need for more substantive and upstream technology assessment.

4A Nanodialogues - engaging with the unengagedAssessment: Lacking fairness and transparency. Materials reviewed = Wollongong Nanodialogue Bionics 19 October 2009Adelaide Nanodialogue Water filtration 22 September 2009Melbourne Nanodialogue 20 October 2009Report on the Forum: Nanodialogue on Nanotechnology and Food Regulation Melbourne 25 March 2009

The Wollongong process was not a ‘dialogue’ but a science promotion/education event. The facilitator appears to have been positioned as an authority figure for the science rather than as a neutral moderator, and in places answered questions alongside the science advocate. There are no alternative views presented to the ‘passive’ public audience. The aim appears to have been to raise awareness of the technology/ educate the audience, and to generate enthusiasm for it. It is not clear from the notes how the nano aspect of the technology was presented or discussed.

The Adelaide process again includes a passive public audience and an expert presenter. The event relied on McGregor Tan research for recruitment and moderation and for the final report. Generally, market research is traditionally focused on analysing consumer responses and preferences which, in turn, can be used to design communication messages to achieve commercial outcomes. This approach can be distinguished from concepts of social engagement and civic input to science governance. In this particular event, it is not clear who in their team did the work and how they might have been perceived. Only one point of view is presented. The use of nanotech for water filtration is brought in under the wider heading of filtration and water issues generally. No other alternatives for filtration or dealing with the wide complexity of water governance are presented. Comments cited in the report from the expert, Dr Shapter appear to be pre-deterministic rather than opening up the discussion about the problem [and underlying causes] and solutions e.g. “a lot of changes are going to occur in society as a result of technology”. Safe sounding analogies for carbon nanotubes are used to explain it e.g. drinking straws. The event report refers to the success of this event in terms of building deference and trust in the expert, humanising him and familiarising the technology, convincing the public to support the technology, personalising it and creating excitement. These are well known marketing methods. The moderator speaks alongside and in support of the expert e.g. how community acceptance of new technologies can be achieved.

The Melbourne Oct 2009 event was a focus group organised by a firm which specialises in using psychological methods to achieve behaviour change. This seems inappropriate in the sense that the focus is on persuasion and behaviour management of a targeted group rather than on public engagement, or dialogue. The company website states: “we can help you work on how to change behaviour and how to evaluate changes in what people say and what they actually do.” A well-recognised focus group process was used to lead people from general issues into an appreciation of the specific product/technology proposal. No other options were presented to address the problem of waste water treatment. This marketing based approach was made clear in the report when respondents were asked “how a nanotechnology based product could be sold to them” [emphasis

added]. The focus group process also seemed to be aimed at identifying trustworthy and credible sources to use in future communication with this audience.

The Melbourne March 2009 event was structured more as a forum than a focus group, with a more relevant process than the other events, but still lacked elements of best practice engagement. There was a mix of stakeholders involved with diverse views, including selected members of the ‘general public’. Diverse science, government industry and NGO presentations were made. There was concern expressed about the purpose of the day, a common theme through these reports. Participants fell into polarised discussion, which is inevitable in an open forum format where some voices will dominate and people seek to score points in debate. Dialogue based formats are usually more productive. There was commonality about the need for a clearer policy framework and the need for more research to inform policy [priorities varied] – but was there an opportunity for such input in to the government’s nanopolicy i.e. is there an opportunity for deliberation? People wanted better policy input, more discussion, and better forms of discussion [p.13]. As might have been predicted, some participants saw the event as too narrow and “missing the big picture” issues, and others reacted to what they saw as “distorted and emotional rhetoric of a future apocalypse”. This dynamic has been found in similar discussions all around the world. More attention could be paid in future to using dialogic process design to avoid polarisation and circularity, by drawing on the literature in this field.

The underlying thinking behind the design of this event is indicated by the selection of the consulting firm Matthews Pegg as the facilitator. From its website, this firm appears to specialise in assisting government and industry and NGO clients to manage the impact of regulations on their organisations, including dealing “sensitively with stakeholders on controversial issues”. This firm had previously had a contract for the “development of a national framework for the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including development of the Gene Technology Act 2000 and the establishment of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.” It is essential important that neutral facilitators and event managers are used when running multi-stakeholder events on sensitive topics, particularly if the aim is to seek engagement and dialogue. The Monash University department involved in the organising also has a focus on regulations, whereas for many stakeholders the important content in the debate on biotech and nanotech is about policy and strategic goals for national science investment. Significantly, in his well-articulated comments on the forum [p.21], the Monash Director Dr Graeme Hodge points out the challenges in dealing with what are essentially political issues and value judgements through regulation. He highlights the need for regulatory regimes to be informed by multi knowledge bases/ evidence bases: “The danger may well be that the food sector may not take the policy challenges seriously enough and simply assume that by continuing to work quietly behind the scenes the protection for existing laws will be sufficient.” Interestingly, the Food and Grocery Council Director was concerned [p.20] about the “lack of engagement by policy makers and regulators in dealing with the concerns of consumers” as well as with the food industry itself, in framing a consistent national policy for nanotech. A number of questions arise from these reports: What was the strategic motivation communication goal behind this initiative? Why is there a focus on the so called ‘unengaged’? Is there a concern that the ‘wrong’ public voices are dominating the discussion? What does an ‘engaged’ citizen look like? Were these events held to provide wide ranging information and to create debate and genuine dialogue on nanotechnology – or to highlight successful and appealing applications that would serve as ‘pin up posters’ for generating public interest and acceptance of nanotech? Why was the focus on regulation when the content of the debate was often about policy and ethics - and ultimately political choices?

For the future: Our observation is that these events were aimed primarily at anticipating and managing stakeholder responses rather than at dialogue. The expertise used was based more in marketing and public relations than in public engagement. The approach taken with these events in 2009-2010 would have set a distinctive tone for the AON and the subsequent NETS PACE programme, which would have constructed ‘science and society’ relationships in a pattern that would produce increasing frustration and distrust in future – not only among those who were opposed to the technology but also among proponents. Opportunities were not taken for genuine dialogue and learning. Many of the elements for a substantive and productive discussion – and even potential consensus - were there, but overlooked due to the processes used. The present review [April 2012] is an opportunity to consider the methodological foundation of the current PACE programme and future goals for engagement and impact. Process design needs to be aimed at both dialogue and deliberation, to achieve outcomes that are socially and policy relevant.

A final point: making progress on controversial science issues is more likely when the most divergent stakeholder interests are brought together rather than avoided. Seeking to exclude the “extremes” of opinion, and constantly engaging only with the moderate middle [we are still not clear if this framing of ‘engagement’ means ‘moderate’ in terms of the public’s level of awareness of the issue, or in terms of their agreement with the technology?] may be counterproductive in the long term. Clearly public opinion surveys are useful tools, in a wider engagement strategy, to gauge the broad range of views. But public engagement programmes can and should be designed to work directly with the depth of issues as they present in the public debate. This can only lead to better policy analysis and outcomes - and to improved civic governance of science and technology.

5A 2008 Social Inclusion and Community Engagement Workshop

Assessment: Balanced. This workshop was organised by the former AON early in the timeline. There was a good agenda and mix of participants, with 45 from government, industry, science researchers, and community. This was a well-intentioned effort to involve stakeholders in developing principles for public engagement. The underlying goal, of involving stakeholders in the design of plans for involving stakeholders, is worthwhile.

The report indicates the amount of forethought and preparation that went into the event, indicative of the fact that it was a relatively new process for the organisers. It had some successes, notably in breaching the difficult topic of how to build social inclusion and public participation with a range of audiences. Feedback was substantially positive but with some reservations, indicative of the challenging nature of the subjects dealt with by the workshop and the degree of uncertainty about objectives, and the rushed nature (and some confusion) about the final session.

Having said that, the respondents [not surprisingly] appear to have focused on their own subjective views and experience - and in several instances they were more interested in getting into the substance of the issues e.g. nano regulation, than reflecting on the principles of engagement itself. Another approach would be to draw on the substantive body of social science knowledge on what works in public engagement. This knowledge could be tested by social researchers with stakeholders, rather than relying on stakeholders to produce the best information in a workshop among themselves.

It is interesting to observe the aims of the various stakeholder groups for engagement. Industry wanted public information and “participation” to “manage public fears” and “education” to reduce concerns about risks, because “industry could not stand still”. Similarly, government participants wanted to build trust through information which is “critical to the acceptance of nanotechnologies”. The scientists themselves wanted to ensure that nano products were safe for employees and the public, called for more public in the debate and referred to the “‘inherent rights of the public to make informed choices”’ [although this was about downstream products, not policies or strategies].

The change agents [not clear who these were] were calling for “‘clear and deliberative processes”’, “‘a commitment for government to involve them”’ and “‘anticipating societal needs and concerns within scientific developments”’ [which is much further upstream in the policy and product development cycle].The gaps identified on p.9 of the report are an important indicator of the underlying issues facing public engagement practice internationally i.e. “limited community input to government policy and regulation... into social impacts and directions of the research... [and] poor industry and community dialogue”.

For the future: The workshop was seen by the participants as a good first step to greater engagement. We agree. Were the 3 action points suggested to AON followed up [p.9]: an issues-based event on regulation, an audit of participatory and engagement activities currently undertaken to understand what works and why; and the identification of nanotechnologies already in use? On p. 11 it was noted that the workshop could help inform the approach to involve stakeholders in ‘the development of nanotechnology regulation’. But we assume that these regulations are already in place.

The criteria on p.3 for best practice public engagement and the holistic approach outline [top of p.4] are well recognised and provide an excellent reference point. However, there are some tensions in the overall process, illustrated by this report. The AON was responsible for implementing the Government’s National Nanotechnology Strategy, which was already in place. The Public Awareness

Programme (PAP) was apparently actioned later, and at a point where there was limited opportunity to influence the already established strategy. On p. 7 it is noted that the workshop could NOT address: guidelines for regulation, government policy supporting nanotechnology. The aims of the PAP appear to be downstream to the policy development and the strategy implementation. The cited goals are to “improve awareness and information” on nano issues and to support a “factual and balanced” community debate. This wording reflects a deficit based framing of public responses. The emphasis is on improving public confidence, diminishing public concerns and removing barriers to implementation e.g. “momentum can only happen once trust” is established. At the same time, the report refers to “partnering” and a “socially inclusive” approach to developing products and policies. This is a very worthwhile aim, but it is strategically misplaced given the timing and scope of the engagement process. Raising expectations about inclusion when foundational decisions have already been made may actually add to social distrust, resulting in a perverse outcome. This diminishes the potential to create the ‘positive culture’ between stakeholders that is being sought.

In this report [and elsewhere in the NETS PACE materials] the term ‘dialogue’ is used but with divergent meanings. From the social science literature, dialogue is not simply about having more than one point of view in the room e.g. scientists and the public. A quality experience involving active listening, and mutual exchange and learning are also required for a communication to be truly dialogic. There is reference to ‘deliberative’ engagement but a narrow understanding of deliberation is used here which excludes the potential for collaborative technology analysis, assessment and decision-making. To be truly deliberative, real world decision makers need to be participants in the process, and there needs to be a real opportunity for the proceedings to influence decisions.

The strategic contradictions above are mirrored in the contrasting expectations of stakeholders at the workshop e.g. some wanted to increase [other people’s] understanding of the issues and promote awareness - and others wanted clarification of the government’s role and a framework for social inclusion. We recognise that these issues are being addressed in the latter phases of the review period, as reflected in the STEP framework.

6A Nanotechnology public forums

Assessment: lacking balance. The audiences had the chance to listen to a series of presentations, mostly from scientists involved in nano-science and experts in the area (and presumably believers in the value of exploring this new technology). They could also hear presentations by a representative of the Friends of the Earth, who presumably took a more cautionary line; and by a professor of ethics whose position is unclear. Then they could ask questions. In terms of ‘balance’, the exercise is questionable, on the following grounds:

1. The audience was self-selecting. Nearly half of the members of the audience identified themselves as knowing little or nothing about nanotechnology when they entered the room, so they probably were informed by these talks. The majority nominated their knowledge of nanotechnology as either ‘high to very high’ (23%), or at a medium level (30%). Where would the average Australian have ranked their knowledge in 2008? Probably low at best, so clearly this was not an average audience. One can surmise the 53% were there because they were strong supporters or had strong concerns about the use of nanotechnology in Australia. This means that the lessons the organisers learnt from the events would not be representative of an ‘average’ Australian view, and thus of limited value in helping shape subsequent materials and documenting concerns. The summary section (page 22) lists what the organisers learnt from the audience: their concerns about the environment, their concerns on public health and safety at home and in the workplace; their concerns about the life cycle of nano-products and how they will be regulated. On the positive side, the organisers discovered ‘members of the public and scientists positively regard aspects of nano science which have the potential to beneficially impact on health and medical problems‘. It is not clear why ‘and scientists’ was included in this comment: the 5 objectives of the program on page 3 of the document are all concerned with improving public awareness, not that of the scientific community which presumably has its own channels of information.

2. The list of speakers shows a preponderance of speakers from the nanotechnology sector.

For the future: There may have been more efficient ways of achieving the aims of this exercise. The aim of getting feedback about the public’s responses to nanotechnology could have been discovered

more effectively and cheaply and accurately by a series of well-designed focus groups. As it was, the participants were self-selecting and cannot be regarded as representative by any of the normal indicators: age, gender, education or attitudes. Any responses from this group would have to be treated with caution. The aim of informing the public about nanotechnology could have more effectively been executed by any number of other means. The total audience for the events was a little over 300, a miniscule audience for the effort and cost that went into the planning and staging of the events.

The framing of the questions put formally to the audiences in the forums needed input from people with expertise. Some of these questions were embarrassingly amateurish:

o Should Australia be a world leader in nanotechnology?o Will nanotechnology be industrially important in Australia within 10 years?o Should the Australian government spend money on basic research in nanotechnology?o Do you think Australia should stay at the cutting edge of nano-medicine?

Although other factors may have contributed to the low rate of return of the evaluation sheets – just over 50% – this may also indicate a lukewarm response to the events by the audience.

Appendix A cont

B. Publications

1B New Technologies for your Changing Future

Assessment: The consultants differed in their views on this document.

One view: Superficially balanced, but with underlying structural problems as a communication device. This reads as a science promotion item that is designed to inspire interest, enthusiasm and excitement in science and particularly in novel technologies. It is written in public relations language and uses design elements such as images, quotations and emotional headlines to create an impression of futuristic progress, innovation and action. A brief discourse text analysis of this publication suggests an underlying narrative around ‘new and powerful’ technologies as the solution for urgent global and local problems. In several places, threats of ‘Climate Change’, overpopulation and food shortages are harnessed as a rallying point for various scientific applications. Biotechnology and nanotechnology are summarised in a positive light on p.3. without reference to contrasting scientific or public views.

Having said that, the publication attempts to provide a wider framing of the issues in 5 ways:

1. The opening editorial piece by Dr Wonhas of CSIRO refers to possibility that some technologies will have inadvertent outcomes and the need for community discussion “as to whether they should be adopted” [however the remainder of the publication is written in deterministic language that suggest these technologies are coming fast and will be adopted]. He suggests the publication is a source for future discussion. But the overall emphasis of the piece is on rapidly adopting technologies and adapting to their impacts because the future is already ’now’.

2. The article on p. 2 summarising the CSIRO foresight report on future “megatrends and megashocks” notes that science and technology research can both identify and mitigate those risks. It notes that while nanotech offers solutions it may also present risks “not captured within existing risk identification and mitigation processes”. It refers to realising the benefits of nanotechnology “with acceptable impact” – which suggests that there is a governance process to identify which impacts are acceptable, and which will inform the selection of technologies. Further, the foresight process should inform “wide-range strategic science planning”, and informed “industry government and community decisions”. But it is not clear what these governance processes comprise.

3. A range of technologies is presented including both high tech [hard system] and low impact or low intervention [soft system ] applications such as foresight monitoring, e water management tools, mapping technologies, waste recycling, low energy house design, solar tech, eco verification tools, database tools, beneficial pests. It is not just nano and biotech, and within biotech not just GM.

4. The ‘opinions and challenges’ section pp 6-7 has a variety of perspectives, values and stakeholder interests and makes interesting reading. However the editorial piece on ‘values’ by Jason Major of TechNYou does not represent best practice thinking in public engagement and perpetuates ideas around ‘factual’ science and ‘emotional values’ that have been challenged in the international STS literature for some time.

5. A small box on risk and safety appears on p.5 and makes some reference to possible negative impacts and concerns. This means the wider publication might be seen as unbalanced. The brief discussion in this section is useful, but it is not expanded in the rest of the publication. The suggestion is that these concerns can all be handled via regulation and a list of regulatory agencies/websites is provided.

Second view: The publication is a description of the potential of a number of new technologies. Many of the technologies are not in the areas of biotechnology and nanotechnology. It includes cautionary notes. Alex Wonhas’s introduction uses the terms ‘extensive public debate … we are investigating the benefits and safety aspects…understand and safeguard from any risks to human health and the environment. … inadvertent outcomes … difficult to foresee … need community discussions … considering the possible impacts.’ The next article says: ‘nanomaterials may present risks not captured within existing risk identification and mitigation processes.’ There is a box on page 5 headed

‘Risk and Safety’, and a range of views are expressed in the opinion pieces in the middle spread, including the most prominent article on values. Readers are invited to express their own views. An appropriate balance is maintained.

For the future: The panellists have differing views

One view: Again, one has to ask about the strategic intent of this publication. It appears to have been part of a campaign for national science week in August 2011. It sets a tone of excitement about science innovation, but substantive issues around the criteria for selecting new technologies to deal with global challenges, and the mechanisms for societal input to decisions, are obscured by the science promotion elements.

Second view: This document sets out the potential of a number of technologies, not all of them in the areas of nanotechnology and biotechnology. A number of cautionary notes are included, as part of larger articles or as separate items or boxes.

2B Nanotechnology Regulations Brochure

Assessment: The brochure seems generally balanced. Was it developed after input from the public workshop above? There is a reference to both risks and benefits, recognition of uncertainty and possible ‘harmful effects’, with a list of possible concerns outlined. The panel is not able to confirm the science or if any other issues have appeared in the literature which should have been included.

From a discourse perspective, some of the language might be seen by some audiences as promotional e.g. “we foresee” [list of new technologies]; “showing great promise” and “keeping pace with technologies”. Some audiences might challenge the statement that “the majority of products …are likely to be of low risk”. We do not know the science well enough to judge, but this underlines the importance of ongoing engagement to keep regulatory information up to date. We are also cautious about the use of the term ‘informed’ community debate as it seems to suggest a preferred outcome. The tone of the brochure is reassuring – “to keep us safe” – one suggestion is that if the brochure were to be revised, a sentence about the uncertainties of dealing with and assessing the potential risks of a new technology might be included. Are there examples of potential problems actually coming into effect? If yes, these could be included. If not, the fact that no problems have materialised should be stated.

For the future: An operational comment: if the brochure was developed as an outcome of stakeholder engagement, and incorporated feedback on a draft, that would be an example of best practice. Is the role of the SAC to help with this kind of review of materials before they are published?

A strategic comment: Based on the experience in other countries, there are a number of underlying tensions that the regulatory and policy sector grapples with, which are reflected in this brochure and which were raised by articulate participants at the workshop above - such as:

1) What are the social, environment and market consequences of proceeding apace with complex novel technologies when the risks are not yet fully understood?

2) In terms of science governance, how do we actually identify possible harmful effects and act effectively [and in time] on any ‘warnings’? Can regulatory agencies fully monitor technology trends and investigate impacts, or are they primarily tasked with responding to product proposals submitted for regulatory approval using standard risk procedures?

3) How can community inputs be included in regulatory decision processes, other than as downstream responses to applications for approval?

4) Do the current regulations, including definitions, provide effective capacity to respond to the specific challenges of nanotech?

5) Even if risks are identified, can they always be ‘managed’ through regulation? Are some risks unmanageable?

This item illustrates the strategic policy risk of trying to resolve underlying science debates through ‘information based’ communication strategies. A brochure cannot solve these issues of course! But the above concerns are at the root of stakeholder responses in many countries and set a challenge for policy agencies to find ways to inform policy and regulation through active stakeholder dialogue.

3B Take a closer look at the issues Avant Card

Assessment: The card is generally ‘balanced’ – although we were not sure of the purpose of the friendly frog image. The card refers to both technology solutions and challenges. It suggests that they could bring technological and social ‘change’, which is a neutral word. But from a discourse analysis perspective, some of the language could be scrutinised. The opening sentence in the text reads “Heard of enabling technologies?” and intimates that the audience should know about them and they need to “take a closer look”. This is the classic idea of creating the scientifically ‘informed’ citizen. There is a suggestion of technological determinism – these technologies are coming and you need to be informed. In fact, the technologies are already here - “they are providing energy solutions etc” - while the challenges are still “under review”. The term “enabling technologies” is not entirely useful, as all technologies enable something to be done! The real issue is what is being enabled, by whom and for what outcome.

For the future: This magnifying card appears to be a friendly device to steer a target audience to the website for TechNYou, described as a “technology information service”. This is certainly an advance on the conventional fridge magnet. The post campaign report indicates how popular ‘The Frog’ was in schools and other venues. The more important question is what was the strategic intent behind this communication tool, which appears to have been produced and distributed at some cost throughout Australia to arts and culture venues, cafes and bars, high schools and universities etc.? At an operational level, did this item deliver the target audience in the expected numbers/segments to the TechNYou website? And on arrival at the website, were people led into participatory/dialogic experiences? The strategic communications purpose of the item might be assessed more closely.

4B Journey into the Nano world - CSIRO fold up

Assessment: the panel had differing views.

One view: This is a science promotion piece and quite clever in that you can form it into a Bucky Ball. There are no references to the risks of nanotech. Some of the statements appear to be neutral but could attract criticism from some audiences e.g. “nanotechnology enables other technologies to be improved”. I am also concerned with generic narratives around biotech and nanotech which suggest they should be accepted by the public because these technologies have always been here, or are natural. From a discourse analysis perspective, we can explore the effect of statements on the reader. “Nature has always used nanotechnology” is one such statement. Many readers would regard nanotechnology as a 20th century human invention. Nano science has enabled us to observe and now manipulate natural elements at the nano scale. From the social research literature, we know that many respondents distrust the suggestion that the manipulation itself is ‘natural’. References to the “width of a human hair” and “invisible to the human eye” imply naturalness and normality, and invoke the judgement of normal human senses. But for some respondents, the implications of this technology are extremely novel and complex and take us into deeply unfamiliar territory. The real issue with nanotech is that new and unknown processes and reactions occur when substances are manipulated at the nano scale or when man-made nanomaterials are introduced to the human body or ecosystems. It is this act of intervention that is the issue in many stakeholder responses to novel technologies, and this point can be obscured in communication writing such as this. Similarly, statements that “more than 1000 consumer products contain some form of nanotech” have the effect of normalising the technology and implying that it is already present in everyday life, and is thus inevitable.

Second view: The model contains 16 statements about nanotechnology, limited to 6-10 words each because of the space available on each polygon. Other polygons contain links to websites for further information, including the TechNYou site, where interested parties can get more detailed information. The messages are largely factual and neutral, suitable for the ‘playful’ nature of the material.

For the future: One view: Who is this communication item aimed at? What is the communications objective behind it? If it is to promote interest in nanoscience and nanotech it is a valid device. But if it is to inform an already intense public debate, the language needs to be neutral. As written, it is not an item that sits easily in a programme aimed at dialogue and deliberation.

Second view: The model is the starting point of trying to stimulate curiosity in nanotechnology in school-age children. The material used imposes severe limitations, like a maximum of 10 words to express an idea about nanotechnology to people who know nothing about it. So if the task is to construct 16 messages in 10 words or less to an ignorant and (probably largely uninterested) audience, which messages should be selected? It’s not perfect and one could argue about the selected content. If the model were to be produced again, one of the polygons should be reserved to express a cautionary note about the concerns some groups hold. But as a promotional tool (in the sense of promoting interest and discussion), the buckyball achieves its aim.

5B Nanotechnology Avant Card ‘Does size really matter?

Assessment: Not fully balanced

Following on from the frog, we have more pictures of dogs and ladybirds which set the scene for this mini booklet. Some audiences may not agree with the statement “Nanotechnology – it’s all about size”. For many stakeholders, the issues are about intervention and impact, not size. Yet there is surprisingly little in this 16 page publication which would alert the reader to any risks or concerns. A dozen or so outcomes are described in positive terms, with no reservations or cautions about possible unintended consequences or side effects.

The section on “safe use” on p.14 implies that other people [including the government and scientists] are addressing those problems. This has the effect of decreasing their connection to people in society. The text also repeats the reassurance that the authorities are keeping on top of the issues, and monitoring in case something emerges. Risk management strategies are being “adjusted” to deal with nanotech as if it were a minor technical change. Meanwhile the scientific research on potential effects on human health and the environment is only now underway. The science project at CSIRO is about “finding out” and “predicting” what might happen in future, but the regulatory rhetoric conveys certainty, knowledge and control. These conflicting rhetorics may themselves be a cause of increasing social distrust of environmental regulation. Overall, this booklet presents the technology as positive and proceeding in the present bringing “big social, economic and environmental benefits to you and the world”, with the risks uncertain and in the future. As with a number of the items reviewed above, this booklet dated April 2010 also appears to read as a marketing communication text and has a tone of promotion and reassurance. The last page indicates a strategic objective of information, rather than dialogue or deliberation. It appears to empower the reader as a citizen and consumer e.g. “learning more about the risks and benefits of nanotechnologies can help you make more informed decisions about their adoption in society”, but the reader is not being invited into a decision-making space. The text implies agency for the audience “this is your guide” but the science hyped language [e.g. p.5] is potentially disabling of civic action around the governance of new technologies.

For the Future: Such booklets need attention to the wording and the tone to more accurately reflect some of the concerns and the uncertainties of nanotechnology. The cautions should be expressed earlier in the booklet as well, so that the reservations some hold are not seen as an afterthought.

C Items raised by members of the Committee

1C. Nanotechnology and you: Safety and regulations brochure, Commonwealth of Australia 2011

This is Item 2B – covered above

2C. The synthetic biology “genome jenga” post card (2011)

Solely a TechNyou product but was reviewed by panel.

Assessment: The panellists differed in their view of this document.

First view: According to Wikipedia, “during the game, players take turns to remove a block from a tower and balance it on top, creating a taller and increasingly unstable structure as the game progresses.” This postcard neatly makes the point that we tamper with biology at our peril.

Second view: My concerns relate more to the strategic intent of the post card and what it is designed to achieve, than to the cartoon or text itself. This item appears to be aimed at directing traffic to the technyou.edu.au website. The cartoon image of the Jenga stacking game conveys some of the uncertainties and risks of building up ever more complex interventions and deletions in genomes which may lead to ‘collapse’ at some future point. TechNYou director Jason Major, uses the same image in his website piece on synthetic biology, and refers to the rise of back yard gene hackers as “the crash of the ivory tower”. The postcard text inside invites the reader to “join the discussion” and on arrival at the website there are a range of social media options and a ‘question and answer’ section. The website states that these images by PicNick [Nick Kallincos] are “postcard fun” aimed at presenting “the lighter side of emerging technologies” (see http://technyou.edu.au/tag/synthetic-biology/ ) In another section of the website, a whole range of ‘fun stuff’ is presented, including an appalling video The Nano Sing Along see http://technyou.edu.au/2011/03/the-nano-song-sing-along/ The TechNYou service is described as “meeting a growing community need for balanced and factual information on emerging technologies” [my emphasis]. As the post card has come out of this stable of communication products, I have questions about the underlying communication aims and objectives for this item and I am not sure how it would fit with the public engagement objectives of the PACE.

For the future: While this is not a NETS PACE product, the programme appears to be aligned with these materials and the TechNYou information service. For future reference, it would be useful for communication planning to distinguish between those materials more suited to science marketing and persuasion campaigns, and those materials to be used in policy-relevant public engagement and deliberation processes. This will enable participants to have a clearer understanding of the purpose of events and publications.

3C. Nanotechnology and foods” fact sheet (2009)

Assessment: Not balanced. The fact sheet sets out basic information about the nature of nanotechnology, and how it could be used in the food industry to improve food packaging, manufacturing and packaging applications. The language is not ‘consistently uneven’ or ‘aggressively promotional’, but rather an expression in simple factual terms of how someone familiar with the industry sees the position. The section “Are there any risks?’ is put in similar terms: simple, factual, cool. This does not work: possible dangers are regarded as interesting experimental questions, rather than matters of real concern to some: “the introduction of manufactured nanoparticles is new and is leading to many questions.’ The authors have not recognized that some people feel very strongly on these issues, and that the document should recognize these concerns.

For the future: If such a fact sheet were to be produced in future, the language would need to be substantially revised.

4C. “Nanotechnologies in the workplace” fact sheet (2009)

Assessment: This fact sheet seems balanced. While it includes some predeterministic language “nanotechnology has great potential to improve the quality of life etc…” it also refers to concerns that may have implications for human health. We are not familiar enough with the science to know if the emphasis in this fact sheet and coverage of the health and safety literature are appropriate. The policy framework is made clear: it is up to employers and manufacturers to determine if a substance is hazardous and to protect the safety of researchers and employees. Meanwhile research is being done on potential health and safety effects. It is noted that there is currently an incomplete picture of the level of risk. Those with strong concerns about nanotech may see the fact sheet as too reassuring, but perhaps this is more of an argument with the wider policy situation than with the fact sheet as such. This is a useful guide which sets out practical steps to minimise any potential dangers. It recognises there ‘might be implications for human health and safety’, uses alarming words like ‘carcinogenic’ and ‘toxic’, and acknowledges that ‘current understanding …is limited’. The first option it presents is not to use engineered nanomaterials, and the second is to substitute ‘less hazardous’ versions. It advises ‘minimising exposures’. The overall tone is a frank recognition of potential dangers.

For the future: Perhaps future communication and public engagement plans might move on from publications like fact sheets towards more interactive events e.g. a science forum on current and future research on nano health and safety? To what extent are unions, health professionals,

scientists, consumers and industry being facilitated into engagement with each other to learn more about this issue? One concern raised by the committee members is the lack of a mandatory labelling of engineered nanomaterials. Has this been considered by appropriate bodies such as HSE Working Group?

5C. “Does size really matter brochure (2009). Produced by CSIRO and DIISR

This is item 5B covered above.

6C. “New Technologies for a changing climate” brochure (2010)

Assessment: Not balanced. The Avant Card booklet is a cross-agency collaboration including DIISR. This publication repeats the definitions and much of the science project promotional material used in “New Technologies for your changing future”, Item 1B – so our comments earlier on that publication apply. Each of the mini science project profiles is upbeat and none make reference to possible adverse effects, expressing none of the concerns about possible negative effects until the penultimate page where it talks about the need for “stringent testing and due diligence”. The booklet positions biotech and nanotech as “cutting edge” solutions for climate change. Wider developments in sustainability science may not be fully reflected in this publication which focuses on bio and nanotech. Some audiences would question the phrase that they “open the door to improved efficiency and cleaner, greener lifestyles” given the potential impacts on ecosystems from some applications. On p.13 there is a pause for thought with the sentence “these innovations are part of the race to combat environmental damage and climate change, but do we know if we are racing too fast?” The booklet also says [p.14] our understanding of the impact of biotech and nanotech must keep pace with their development. There is one mention of health safety and environment issues on p.14 which again relegates these matters to government agencies for “stringent testing”. Health and safety is contrasted with the need to make these innovations feasible and cost efficient.

For the future: This item reads as a biotech and nanotech promotional publication and as such would not be seen as a neutral item suitable as an input to a formal public engagement process. Its publication, as one of a wide suite of materials and events, reflects the underlying strategic communication issues raised elsewhere in this review. We recognise however that this item was a cross agency project and as such may have been developed from a mix of objectives.

Such publications would not be seen as best practice if commissioned or supported by a body with a requirement to present a balanced view. Even material aimed at providing information needs to have a balanced presentation of potential risks as well as benefits.

7C. ”Nanotechnologies Teacher Information” CSIRO/DIISR (2010)

Assessment: Not fully balanced. The publication was produced for teachers by DIISR and CSIRO. It uses the phrase “evidence based” in several places, which many STS scholars would question [drawing on the literature around post-normal science]. This can have the effect of implying greater scientific certainty than may exist on some aspects of nanoscience and nanotech, and obscuring important nontechnical dimensions e.g. social, cultural and ethical issues. In fact, this publication is aimed at creating “evidence based opinions” [emphasis added] in students. The outcomes sought include an awareness of the science and technology and materials, and also awareness of “possible ethical, social, environmental, health and public choice and other issues surrounding nanotechnologies.” There is a reasonable overview on p.5 but a distinct lack of content on this last objective in the remainder of the publication. Is this covered in another teaching module? The strand on ‘Science as a Human Endeavour’ [p.8] refers to social and ethical issues, but then refers to the need for informed, evidence based decision-making, and applying “scientific understandings” to make “responsible, ethical and informed decisions about issues”. This may have the effect of scientising the discussion when values need to be surfaced and where multiple disciplines and knowledge frameworks apply. Interestingly, the growing scientific field in ecological assessment of nanotech is not mentioned in the environment section [p.10]. Environmental issues are mentioned as a concern of environment groups only. There is some useful reference to safety and risks in the health section [p.11] but these issues are not carried through to the detailed activities and questions in section 6.

For the future: This publication is part of a wider educational resource programme to “introduce accessible and innovative” science and technology to Australia. It is about positioning these technologies in the curriculum, to ‘engage’ students with the subject [p.9] but divergent understandings of ‘engagement’ appear in the text. We would be interested to know what peer review or stakeholder review processes were used to produce this publication – if it had been intended as part of a public engagement process. Again, we recognise that this item was a cross agency project and as such may have been developed from a mix of objectives.

8C. The Biotechnology Australia “The tools of biotechnology” A2 poster (undated)

This predates the review period by a few years. Not reviewed.

9C. The ‘space elevator” and “personal care products” modules for high school teaching from the Access Nano Program (2008)

Assessment: not fully balanced. We have reviewed these publications on line. The ‘space elevator’ module describes carbon nanotubes but makes no reference to potential risks. The ‘personal care products’ module also leave us with some concerns regarding balance. We are not in a position to assess the science but understand there are some issues potentially around human health effects and disposal to the environment. The module makes no reference to this recent impacts research. It leaves questions in the hand of the [Year 7] student with statements such as “Are there safety issues with nanoparticles in products?” Should products that use nano include this on the label?” without providing information that would enable those questions to be discussed. Perhaps these matters are covered elsewhere in the Access Nano materials?

For the future: greater attention to the scientific literature and product testing prior to publication.

10C. TechNYou blog “Nanotech: Overheated promises and hot air” (2010)

Assessment: The consultants differed in their view on this document.

First view: This item does carry the opinions of the author, but it needs to be read in the context of what it is: a blog. By their nature, blogs are conversational, personal and can be opinionated. Is it fair? Balanced? The author does admit he has not read the complete report. To say there is not much new in the report is to comment rather than to denigrate. He describes some of the challenges the technology faces as scientists try to make it effective. Most readers would find it a refreshingly honest appraisal of the rocky path that new technologies face.

Second view: This blog was written by the manager of TechNYou, a government information service. The reaction to it highlights an issue discussed at the social media panel discussion Item 2a, which I commented on earlier i.e. credibility issues can arise when a reporter who is trained to follow best practice journalism and neutrality in their reporting is also seen to be publicising their opinions on the subject they report on via a blog. The same perception may arise here, if one person wears two different communication ‘hats’. If TechNYou is meant to be a neutral service providing “balanced and factual information”, the anecdotal and somewhat combative stance in this article is inappropriate, particularly as by his own admission the writer had not read the full FOE report.

For the future: First view: Encourage more material of the same nature. The refreshingly frank approach will stimulate discussion.

Second view: Blogs with strongly opinionated opinions are a good thing. But the role of authors in the context of wider programmes needs to be considered. These TechNYou materials are associated with NETS PACE and as such they all contribute to an overall ‘look and feel’ in the government’s communication programme, which inevitably colours how its attempts at public engagement will be regarded. There is a need for a clearer objective and brand image for the PACE public engagement programme, and for consistent delivery of that brand in all activities, products and publications. A range of upbeat communication products makes sense for a science promotion campaign if the goal is to seeing new technologies and products implemented. In that context there is room for blogs and opinions. Materials for use in a formal programme of public engagement need to be based on a

stance of independent facilitation with a neutral tone, and should carefully address all elements in the issue under discussion. Where there might be controversy about some content, this should be subjected to appropriate peer and stakeholder review. Alternatively divergent, partisan content can be presented as stimulus material for an interactive stakeholder process.

11C. The National Science Week “GM Food: a dinner discussion” poster and event (2011)

No NETS-PACE funding provided. The previous event in 2010 had been part-funded by NETS-PACE but this event, run by the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics and TechNyou received National Science Week funding. Not reviewed.

12C. Fold out model of a buckyball, undated.

Produced by DIISR, TechNYou, ARC Centre of Excellence for Functional Nanomaterials and the Australian Technology Alliance (ANA). Comments provided above Item 4B

13C. The “Journey in-to the nano-world” fold out brochure (undated)

Item 4B above

14C. “New Technologies for your changing future”, 2011, Australian government

Item 1B above

15C. Nanotechnology – working with the smallest things” July 2008 Australian Government

This early 2008 ‘fact sheet’ [?] mirrors information set out in other materials above, notably the ‘Nanotechnologies in the Workplace’ fact sheet. See earlier comments. The version provided to reviewers was dated June 2008. It did not include the sentence to which the Committee objected, beginning “The physical and chemical properties …’

Additional items highlighted by the Committee for the Review Panel

4B Journey into the Nano world – 4 page brochure

Assessment: not fully balanced. The panellists had different views.

First view: The brochure uses the same examples as other items subject to this review. The tone of the brochure is positive about the potential benefits of nanotechnology, and the weight of the material is strongly supportive of the technology. Some balance is maintained through prominent red boxes exhorting readers to ‘Be an informed citizen’ and understand the risks and benefits; and a second box pointing out that nanotechnology and its unique properties ‘may also lead to new risks’.

Second view: This brochure is a promotional piece to inform and excite the reader about nanoscience and technologies. It has similar text to other items reviewed above. It would not be seen as ‘balanced’ as an input into a dialogic engagement process. There is no reference to the scientific literature on human health or environmental risks of nanotech. The box on ‘safety’ on the last page is very small in proportion to the rest of the publication, and again asks the reader to trust that regulatory authorities have it ‘covered’. There is another small box on p.3 which exhorts the reader to be an ‘informed citizen’, if they wish to take part in public discussions.

For the future: First reviewer: As all material needs to have a balanced presentation of potential risks as well as benefits, this brochure would need a mild revision. To comply, it would need to give more weight to the concerns of those groups who have reservations about nanotechnology, if it is to present a balanced picture. If it is to be produced again, consideration should be given to allocating reasonable space (say, one full-length column) to spell out the concerns and uncertainties around this emerging science.

Second reviewer: such publications need to cite the scientific literature on potential nano risks – including what is known already or is seen as requiring investigation and monitoring - as well as mentioned the concerns of some groups. This item, along with several others reviewed above, is an attempt to deal with substantive issues around the potential and known risks of nanotech through the publication of a communications print item. It might be more useful in future to use other engagement methods e.g. a stakeholder seminar on nano risk research, including a process to identify where future research might be targeted to address both scientists’ and non scientists’ risk questions.

7A Nanotechnology evaluation of the brochure - Nanotechnology Regulations public discussions – report [date?] by Wendy Russell [of events in 2009? Or 2010/]

Assessment: broadly balanced. This appears to have been a valuable series of discussions with good outcomes. The roles of the experts and the moderator are vital to the success of these discussions. Generally seem to have worked well, but experts need to be briefed carefully as to how they perform. Several best practice features as reported for this event are worth noting:

a) independent moderator, b) useful stimulus materials provided prior and during panel presentation, c) a useful distinction was made between those labelled as ‘engaged’ meaning interested in the issue [either for or against] cf other meanings of ‘engaged’ used elsewhere in the materials meaning positive, trusting and pro the technology d) the format was using elements of the ‘talking technology’ conference process. Three questions remain: did the panel of experts on regulations have diverging views? Were the comments on the draft materials actually used to design the final brochures? Did any of this discussion directly influence the current regulations themselves? A good series of recommendations following on from the event, both in how the brochure might be amended, and small tips on future events might work.

However, there is a wider question about this event in that it appeared to confuse two aims – product testing the draft text of a brochure and consulting people about nano regulation. In Appendix A p.16 of the report it appears that this “public discussion” was organised by Ipsos Eureka a “survey-based marketing research firm” which helps its clients to “interpret, simulate, and anticipate the needs and reactions of consumers, customers and citizens” [retrieved 2/4/12 from http://www.ipsos.com.au/ISRI/about/] The advertisement suggests it would be a “discussion about nanotechnology with scientists, regulators and members of the public”. On p.14 the report notes that there participants asked questions about the purpose of the event and Wendy Russell had explained that “as well as testing the brochure, NETS PACE is interested in initiating such discussions and feeding information from them into policy deliberation.”

For the future: It is a concern that mixed or unclear messages about the strategic intent may have been given to participants – and one has to ask to what extent this was a deliberative process that genuinely affected policy deliberations?

Appendix B Draft Terms of Reference for the Independent Review of NETS-PACE Materials

(As provided to Review Panel by DIISRE)

Context

This review is proposed subsequent to a request from a group of twelve NGOs made in April 2010 at a nanotechnology stakeholder forum held by the NETS office. It results from their concern that public education and communication materials, and public events organised or supported by NETS and DIISR, do not reflect an adequate diversity of views, adequate expression of critical views or adequate participation of community groups and unions in public events and stakeholder forums.

The request for the review was referred to the NETS Stakeholder Advisory Council for advice and discussed at its first meeting in January 2011 by the broad range of stakeholders represented there. A review was discussed and agreed to by the SAC, and the terms of reference for the review were agreed to at its second meeting on 26 July 2011.

Purpose

The purpose of the review is to:

(1) Undertake an independent assessment of NETS-PACE or DIISR initiated or part-funded materials during the period 2007-2011. This will include a representative sample of education, engagement or awareness materials; school curriculum or education materials for teachers; brochures, postcards and toys; website fact sheets; and blogs such as Tech’N’You. The review should include those materials most widely distributed or accessed, as well as a sample of other materials.

The review should investigate whether or not:

1.1 materials embody the assumption or communicate the view that nanotechnology development should be promoted by government;

1.2 the full range of stakeholder views, including critical views, is reflected, including in relation to issues that extend beyond toxicity risks (e.g. in relation to ethics, privacy, energy demands of nanomaterials manufacture, military applications etc);

1.3 description of health and environment risks reflects accurately the current state of the science;

1.4 existing regulatory gaps are identified accurately, including where existing regulatory triggers or labelling requirements may not differentiate between bulk and nano-forms of a substance;

1.5 comparable treatment and certainty of language is used to describe both fears as well as hopes for nanotechnology’s positive and negative impacts on health, environment, society and economy.

(2) Undertake an independent assessment of a representative sample of NETS-PACE or DIISR initiated or part-funded engagement activities during the period 2007-2011. This should include both public events and forums, and those targeted at particular stakeholders or interest groups, for example journalists or industry.

In addition to the aspects listed below, the review should investigate:

1.6 Date and location of each event;1.7 Costs associated with holding and promoting each event;1.8 Co-organising associations or groups of each event;1.9 Representation of speakers from each stakeholder group (industry, research, union/

NGO), or their topics of concern

(3) develop key principles to guide the development of new events and materials; and

(4) provide a short report with findings and recommendations for any changes or improvements to events and materials to the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, to the SAC and for consideration and advice to the Minister.

Methodology

1. Past public engagement events

Scope: The review will assess a representative sample of public events held since the beginning of 2007. This will include sectoral events, such as media briefings and presentations at scientific or industry conferences. It will consider the following, in line with the objectives of NETS-PACE:

the purpose of each event; target and actual audiences, and the needs and preferences of those audiences; groups and organisations with a co-organising or co-sponsorship role and that impact on the

nature on the event; groups and individuals invited to present, and the interests/ sector of those groups and

individuals; topics and content of presentations made; any supporting information such as video and audio files; and the general quality in terms of process and content.

The assessment should include a numerical analysis of different stakeholder group representation as well as some qualitative analysis of whether participants covered the key dimensions of the topics (i.e. the representation of ‘messages’ as well as ‘messengers’, and relevance to the audience and theme of the event).

The assessment should also take into account best practice in current communications theories and practice.

2. Education and information materials

Scope: The review will analyse a representative cross section of the most popular or widespread materials produced by NETS and Tech'N'you, and those part-funded by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, for example the “Access Nano” school teaching modules. The review should consider:

groups and organisations with a co-organising or co-sponsorship role; groups or individuals invited to make contributions to content, or to review early drafts; the interests of those groups and individuals; factual correctness; breadth and balance of coverage, including whether critical views are presented alongside

optimistic views of nanotechnology’s broader potential (e.g. in relation to social, economic and sustainability aspects). Whether concerns over health and environmental risks, ethical issues, equity and privacy issues, and regulatory coverage are stated clearly;

curriculum relevance and teachers’ input; purpose and intended audiences and whether each achieved its objectives; and the underpinning quality control processes.

The assessment should include consideration of best practice for development, distribution and presentation of government-funded public information and engagement materials.

3. Principles and protocols for the future

Scope: The review will consider and advise on appropriate key principles and protocols to guide the development of new events and materials, in line with the objectives of NETS-PACE, and taking into account the outcomes of the multi-stakeholder engagement process. The advice should be informed by the above assessments and be cognisant of the constraints on publicly-funded activities operating across whole of government.

Makeup of the Review Panel

The review will be undertaken by a panel of three or four people, chosen from the following peak professions:

the International Association for Public Participation; and the Asia Pacific Science and Technology in Society Network;

the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner; and

the Public Communication of Science and Technology.

The members of the review panel should have some awareness of the key issues related to communicating science to the wider public, experience or knowledge of public engagement, and some awareness of government processes. They should not have any financial relationship with NETS-PACE, except in a review capacity, nor should there be any perception of bias.

The panel chair and members will be agreed in consultation with the SAC by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

Timetable

The panel should be formed by the end of August and report as soon as reasonably practicable.

Consultations

The panel may undertake targeted consultations with key stakeholders to the extent they believe it necessary to fulfil their terms of reference. Any such consultations should ensure that an appropriate balance of views is obtained.

Secretariat

The Panel will be supported by funding from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

Appendix C - Letter to DIISR regarding Terms of Reference

30 January 2012

Dear Dr Cormick

Thank you for the invitation to review the materials and events published, organised or part-funded by NETS-PACE and DIISR.On behalf of the consulting team, I am writing today for two reasons:

1. To respond to the terms of reference of the inquiry; and2. To request that members of the Consultative Committee be invited to furnish examples of

materials or events that they felt did not adequately reflect a balanced view of new and emerging technologies

We understand the broad purpose is to assess whether materials and events produced to date have been balanced, fair, and represented the concerns about potential dangers held by some groups as well as the potential benefits; and to make recommendations on how materials and events should be produced in the future.

Response to the terms of reference

We have looked closely at the terms of reference, and wanted to make the following comments:

Under ‘Purpose: 1’3. “description of health and environment risks reflects accurately the current state of the science”This is a technical matter, and we (the reviewing team) do not have the technical expertise to make a judgement on this matter

4. “existing regulatory gaps are identified accurately, including where existing regulatory triggers or labelling requirements may not differentiate between bulk and nano-forms of a substance”This is another technical matter, and again beyond the scope of our expertise. These questions might be more appropriately referred to bodies such as the National Registration Authority - Chemicals Australia (NRA) and National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS)

Under ‘Purpose: 3’ Our view is that it might be helpful to the work of NETS and the Consultative Committee if the wording were amended by inserting new words so that it reads:‘develop key principles to guide a strategic process for the development of new events and materials;’

Under ‘Methodology: 1”

5. It would be very difficult to determine ‘the needs and preferences of those audiences’. Individual members of the audience would have to be identified, located and surveyed; and this would take a lot of time.

Under ‘Education and information materials’6. Determining the ‘factual correctness’ of materials prepared for this program is a technical matter and beyond the expertise of the reviewers. It would be very helpful, however, if members of the Consultative Committee were to identify any materials they felt did not provide an accurate and balanced view of issues covered in the program.

7. ‘Curriculum relevance and teachers’ input’. In general terms, issues of curriculum are handled by expert committees of teachers and discipline specialists, and judgements on relevance and input are probably best made by these groups. It would be very helpful if members of the Consultative Committee could draw to our attention any materials they felt were not relevant or lacked input from working teachers or had not been developed through normal processes.

8. ‘Purposes and intended audiences and whether each achieved its objectives’. Again, issues of curriculum are handled by expert committees of teachers and discipline specialists, and judgements on whether the materials achieved their objectives are best made by these groups.

Request to members of the Consultative Committee

It would be helpful to us, in working through the substantial amount of material prepared under these programs, if the members of the Consultative Committee could identify examples of materials and events that they felt were not fair or balanced or did not represent concerns about potential dangers as well as a statement about potential benefits.

Identifying the item or the event, with an accompanying comment explaining the concerns of the Committee Member, would help us appreciate the issues. It would also be useful to have examples of exemplary materials or events.

Could you please send an invitation to all members of the Committee inviting them to submit materials? We would be happy to elaborate on the reasons.

Yours sincerely

Toss Gascoigne

Appendix D - Biographical Notes on Review Panel Members

Mr Toss Gascoigne

Toss Gascoigne is the inaugural President of the PCST Network, an international group promoting the public communication of science and technology, and a founding member of the Australian Science Communicators. He is former Executive Director of Australian organisations representing researchers in the sciences, and the humanities and social sciences. He is interested in the linkages between researchers and government, and approaches that persuade Governments to adopt evidence-based processes in determining policy. He has edited a number of books on science communication, and published on subjects ranging from the history of science communication in Australia, to an examination on the status of science communication as a discipline.

Relevant professional positions and appointments include:

President, Network for the Public Communication of Science and Technology 2006-

President, Australian Science Communicators

Executive Director, Australian Science Innovations (2009-10)

Executive Director, Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (2004-2008)

Executive Director, Federation of the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (1995-2004_

Private consultancies in science communication (1995-)

Dr Karen Cronin

Dr Karen Cronin conducted this NETS PACE review initially as an employee of Environmental Science and Research, New Zealand. In February she took up a new role as Science Team Leader, Governance and Policy at Landcare Research, New Zealand. Karen has a background in environmental management, social research and communications. She joined the government research sector in 2008 after a management career in local and central government, and a period of consulting and lecturing in environmental science and communication. Her academic research interests include:

Environmental management and sustainability Science policy decision-making Risk governance and risk communication Public engagement, particularly through 'dialogue' methods The social processes around technology development and transfer Public policy and social discourse around biotechnology, nanotechnology and future food

technologies

Relevant professional positions and appointments include:

Chair, Asia Pacific Science Policy Studies Conference, Wellington, NZ, February 2012Associate Editor, Journal of the Royal Society of NZ , 2010-Co Founder/ Inaugural Convenor, Asia Pacific Science Technology and Society Network 2008-09; and Member International Advisory Board 2010-Co Founder and Inaugural Committee Member, NZ Society for Risk Management 2001-04Member (the World Conservation Union) IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) 2009- Member IUCN Commission on Environmental Education and Communication, 1996 – 2006Member of OECD international working party which produced member country guidelines on risk communication 1998-2001.