The European Commission has put out a research bid for tender a - European Platform on Nano Outreach and Dialogue (NODE). It looks rather like a PR campaign for Nano with a bit of social science analysis attached at the moment, so despite having a great consortium of really cool independent organisations ready to tender we are hesitating to get involved now we see the text of the call.
So I thought, let’s pretend we can use that money, perhaps as much as €4million, for exactly what we would like. What would we do, particularly bearing in mind this is taxpayers money, mine, yours, your Mum’s, my Aunty Vera’s. What really is a good use of all our money?
It really made me think carefully about what MATTER was all about, and after a lot reading, a fair bit of head scratching and a lie down I went off the whole idea and here’s why:
Nano isn’t the point
A lot has already been spent in a number of different countries, with varying ‘success’, on engaging with the public about ‘nano’ in general. The report of the DEEPEN project summarises the different perspectives very well. We pretty much know what people think about nano, more of that won’t add anything. It may be useful for governments and perhaps businesses in different countries to have a handle on their people’s views and acceptance of nano and other technologies, but that’s not our job.
But then what about making the dialogue more specific – ‘what do you think about nano in food, cosmetics, energy etc?’ I did a trial of something like that with a previous FP7 project, the Nanoplat which investigated the value of a deliberative web interface for dialogue on nano in Europe. In a small part of the project we, and an independent food research group developed an idea called Food Futures. A great team from a scenarios consultancy in Belgium had the idea to create some fabulous photos of the potential foods of the future using nano as stimulus material for dialogue to help people understand the benefit, the potential risk and the science behind it.
The trouble was many of the much vaunted uses of nano were unlikely in the next 5 years and those that were more likely didn’t look that interesting. Do you want salt free salt or fat free fat or sugar free sugar? Haven’t we got those already you might say. That does seem perhaps contrary to the conclusions of the House of Lords Nano and Food report (or at least its press release) that there were many new and astonishing applications, many of them being kept a big secret. I think the reality may be much less exciting!
So we broadened our remit and looked at some of the potential GM applications as well as some nano enhanced ‘nutraceutical’ areas, packaging and IT. That began to look more worthwhile, and the potential pics were fabulous! But it wasn’t really a nano dialogue, it was much more than that. Also, I worried it wasn’t really our job either, though I think there is a role for independent organisations such as ours to host this sort of dialogue. But there are plenty of organisations who can and should do that work, perhaps the companies developing the materials and the products or the government bodies who’s job is to approve those sorts of products.
Speculative ethics – what’s really ‘worth’ engaging about
So thinking about what subjects are ‘worth’ engaging about lead me to the excellent article from Alfred Nordman and Arie Rip in Nature Nanotechnology – Mind the Gap Revisited - cautioning about dialogue around ‘speculative ethics’ – eg the ethics ‘industry’ getting over exorcised about applications which probably won’t come to fruition, but influence the perception of the technology nonetheless.
In blunt summary, which doesn’t do justice to the article, they recommend that ethical debate happens much closer to real applications, and not just the spooky high tech stuff, but less ‘sexy’ apps – nano-enabled remote monitoring and its implications on doctor-patient-hospital relationships for example, or ethical issues associated with antibacterial surfaces or miniaturisation of semiconductors.
I think some of the medical research organisations, Wellcome Foundation etc may already be looking at some of the medical areas, but the consumer product areas are not being considered.
But again, the nano is not the point and a nano-focused dialogue project wouldn’t do the trick. Where does this leave us with the NODE project.
But what is a good use of public time?
I keep coming back to my old hobby horse of Aunty Vera. What is a good use of her time? Why should someone finish their daily grind and go off to some church hall to participate in a dialogue about some ‘ology’ they don’t know or care about or click on a website or take a phone call? What could make that look like a good way for you to spend your time? Especially now we live in the Big Society and we’re supposed to be running the local Post Office in our spare time, as well as looking after our elderly relatives who can’t afford a care home, and getting more exercise and spending quality non-electronic time with the kids! I may be being unfair here, but public engagement organisations rarely trouble themselves with this aspect of their work!
A useful new contribution is the ScienceWise/Involve report What the Public Say – about public engagement in national decision making – basically, looking at public engagement in the context of the Big Society. Influence is the key. They have found that ‘members of the public who have participated in pre-organised public dialogues consistently comment that they see a high level of value in the processes and the ability to influence national decision making.’
So will this €4million be used to have a real influence on the direction of policy in the different EU countries in relation to nano. I think as it’s currently configured, no. It looks to me like ‘market research’ which is in itself very useful for those governments and businesses who need to know what people think to plan their research programmes, develop their products, but it’s not really the sort of public involvement I want MATTER to do.
..and what sort of dialogue is useful?
The above study finds that the public consistently ‘has the ability to engage with complex issues, absorb difficult information and provide considered advice that helps to make better decisions, specifically around policies involving science and technology.’
There have been some very useful dialogues on various subjects which I won’t go into here (many are showcased in the report), but this benefit refers to the few hundred or so who can be engaged at any one time with a detailed public dialogue. It doesn’t relate to our ability to make quality judgements about these issues, products and applications of technology without the benefit of a panel of experts and just based on our reading of the national press and the government’s daft website Science So What (so nothing).
If we want to have ‘new technologies which work for us all’, ‘us all’ have to have to be able to trust those making the decisions on our behalf and where we don’t, have some confidence that trustworthy processes and organisations are on the case. At the very least we need better quality, impartial information to help us make our own mind up, for better or for worse.
This is where www.nanoandme.org came in and in fact has even more relevance in a Big Society world. If we are being dialogued at by governments, companies, universities, ngos, bloggers, media etc, all with their own agendas, how do we decide what we really think?
Would an impartial platform like nano&me, showcasing the issues in one place, if rolled out to other countries actually make a useful contribution? Yes in one way, but probably not if it just sits there. It has to be part of a concerted attempt to engage the public in the issues around nano.
Which brings me full circle to my previous conclusion: Nano is not the point!
We need a vision and a plan!
So what is the point?
We have to go both down a level and up a level from nano generic dialogue. Down a level to look, as Nordman and Rip say, at specific applications and the social, ethical and environmental repercussions of their use. In particular where some useful contribution to decision making can be made in advance, (like the EPRSC Nanomedicines dialogue) or where input is needed on an ongoing basis as part of understanding the implications of their development and use (like the remote monitoring issue previously mentioned).
We also need companies to get involved in this, they are at the sharp end of developing and delivering these sometimes controversial applications of new technologies. If anyone has any money, we have a great project proposal on that called Walking with Stakeholders – Best practice in stakeholder engagement and communications for companies involved with applications of science and technology.
But also up a level, because as a country we need to have a clearer vision for our future and our place in the world; better articulated goals and a set of priorities for action for governments and research councils and even companies to deliver societal, economic and environmental benefits through these new technologies, to make them work for us all. (To us ‘all’ doesn’t just mean us, the public, it also includes businesses, social services and the rest of society too – not an easy balancing job!)
Will this Node project help that process? No.
So I think I’ll take a look again and see where we can make a contribution which is worthwhile. One hates to turn down the potential for a big chunk of €4million without a great deal more thought!
If you have any views on how €4million should be spent on public engagement with nano, do let me know!