Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6th February 2007
Working Paper
Resulting from the Workshop on
Open Consultation on a Strategy for Communication Outreach in Nanotechnology
(Brussels, 6th February 2007)
Interested citizens and stakeholders are invited to express comments, opinions and suggestions by end June 2007 to .
A final document will be then published.
Editor: Dr. Matteo Bonazzi
European Commission
Unit "Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies"
Date of publication: 20 April 2007
This publication can be downloaded from:
http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology
The views expressed in this document are entirely those of the Authors
and do not engage or commit the European Commission in any way.
More information on nanotechnology at the European Commission
is available on http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology
Special thanks to Dr. Jennifer Palumbo, Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza, Naples, Italy, for the help in editing this working paper.
Authors
Dr. Luigi Amodio – Director, Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza, Naples, Italy
Dr. Andrea Bandelli - Private consultant, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Dr. M.J Buxo i Rey – Professor, Observatorio de Bioética y Derecho, Parc Cientific de Barcelona, Spain
Dr. Ana Rita Claro Rodrigues -Ciência Viva- Agência Nacional para a Cultura Científica e Tecnológica, Lisboa, Portugal
Dr. Valentina Corato - Partner manager Association MQC2 - CNR Naples, Italy
Dr. Dulce Ferreira - Fábrica Centro Ciência Viva de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
Dr. Nynke Etk Fokma - Moebius Consultancy, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Dr. Catherine Franche - Executive Director, Ecsite, Brussels, Belgium
Dr. Dominique Grand – CEA (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique) –Grenoble, France
Dr. Ulrich Kernbach - Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany
Dr. Guglielmo Maglio - Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza –Naples, Italy
Dr. Rosina Malagrida i Escalas – Head of Science Communication and Diffusion, Parc Científic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Ms. Keelin Murphy - Education & Outreach - Centre for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN), Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Dr. Francesca Olivini - Educational Services and International Relations, Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia 'Leonardo da Vinci', Milano, Italy
Dr. Jennifer Palumbo - Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza, Naples, Italy
Dr. Helena Rodrigues - Fábrica Centro Ciência Viva de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
Dr. Roland Schaer - Director Sciences et Société, Cité des sciences et de l'industrie, Paris, France
Dr. Elisabeth Schepers - Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany
Dr. Monique Snippers - Program Assistant Frontiers Mesa+ Research Institute, Enschede, The Netherlands
Dr. Stef Stayaert - Vlaams Instituut voor Wetenschappelijk en Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek, Flemish Parliament, Belgium
Dr. Rinie van Est -Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag, The Netherlands
Dr. Paulo Velho - Ciência Viva- Agência Nacional para a Cultura Científica e Tecnológica, Lisboa, Portugal
Dr. Patricia Verheyden – Manager of exhibits Technopolis, the Flemish Science Center, Mechelen, Belgium
Dr. Rolf Vermeij - University of Twente, The Netherlands
Dr. Jennifer Wong - Dana Centre Programmes Developer, Dana Centre, London, UK
Dr. Maria Xanthoudaki - Educational Services and International Relations, Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia 'Leonardo da Vinci', Milano, Italy
Introduction
It is my pleasure to present this publication which is the outcome of the workshop on Communication Outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6th February 2007 organized by the European Commission. This publication is open to comments, opinions, suggestions and -of course- criticisms by all interested citizens and stakeholders. Following the received inputs, a second workshop is planned for producing the final document, possibly by end 2007.
Outreach, dialogue and inclusiveness are key elements of the European approach to nanotechnology. Information, communication and fostering societal debate have already become integral constituent of the portfolio of European initiatives.
The European Commission (EC) has adopted in 2004 the Communication "Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology"[1] and in 2005 the "Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009"[2]. In these political documents, an integrated, safe and responsible strategy was proposed to Europe (and world wide). The EC stated that "societal impacts need to be examined and taken into account. Dialogue with the public is essential to focus attention on issues of real concern rather than “science fiction” scenarios". Moreover, the EC observed at that time that "nanotechnology is poorly understood. Since it is complex and concerns a scale that is invisible, nanotechnology may be a difficult concept for the public to grasp. While the potential applications of nanotechnology can improve our quality of life, there may be some risk associated with it, as with any new technology - this should be openly acknowledged and investigated. At the same time the public’s perception of nanotechnology and its risks should be properly assessed and addressed".
Since its first actions in nanotechnology in the early 2000s, the EC has highlighted appropriate communication and dialogue as an asset to put nanotechnology development in phase with people's expectations and concerns, at the same time also contributing to pave the way for a level playing field in the global market. In fact, "without a serious communication effort, nanotechnology innovations could face an unjust negative public reception. An effective two-way dialogue is indispensable, whereby the general publics’ views are taken into account and may be seen to influence decisions concerning R&D policy." Clearly, "the public trust and acceptance of nanotechnology will be crucial for its long-term development and allow us to profit from its potential benefits. It is evident that the scientific community will have to improve its communication skills."
Additionally, the EC also aimed to address the mandate in the action plan by proposing to " a better dialogue between researchers, public and private decision-makers, other stakeholders, and the public is beneficial for understanding possible concerns and tackling them from the standpoints of science and of governance, and to promote informed judgement and engagement".
In this light, the 6th and 7th Framework Programmes (FP6 and FP7) of the European Union for supporting and funding scientific research and technological development have played and play a pivotal role. Aiming at the implementation of the Lisbon agenda for growth and competitiveness, they address also the role of science in society, which has several peculiarities in the new field of nanotechnology. EC-funded nanotechnology research (and use) should be responsible and thus respond to the needs, expectation and concerns of the European stakeholders.
The initiatives related to communication, outreach and dialogue with the so-called civil society include many projects funded within FP6 and will presumably be reinforced within the current FP7, which will last until 2013.
This report summarizes the results of a workshop organized by the EC with the participation of international experts from the fields of communication, outreach and nanotechnology.
The main program of the workshop consisted of an introductory lecture, group discussions dynamics based on an open space methodology and a final plenary session. A writing group prepared the initial draft of this report based on workshop discussions, and this final paper was reviewed by all workshop participants and some outside experts. The contents are based on the results of the group discussions. The structure of this report follows the main topics identified and discussed by the groups.
This exercise aims at identifying which messages are appropriate, if any, and which vehicles, techniques and outcomes are to be set up to attain citizens who are not properly informed on nanotechnology, especially tough-to-reach audiences. Assessment of current communication and insight of desirable outcomes will be outlined, and appropriate participatory mechanisms promoting dialogue with the broad civil society can be explored, which are specific to nanotechnology.
It was aimed at assessing current communication experiences and outlining insight of desirable outcomes. This allows identifying the most appropriate participatory mechanisms promoting a balanced dialogue with the broad civil society. As a result, recommendations emerge also for specific actions to be examined under FP7.
This document has been uploaded on http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/ in order to broaden the discussion through an open forum. The results will be examined by the Authors in order to prepare a final publication, possibly thanks to a second workshop by end 2007.
All citizens and stakeholders, in Europe and beyond, are welcome to express comments, opinions and suggestions to the present working paper writing to by end June 2007.
It would be valuable that other countries and organizations at national or international level initiate similar initiatives, so to confront and benchmark our experiences, identify best practices and create a shared basis of information.
Renzo Tomellini
Head of Unit
Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies
Working Paper
Resulting from the Workshop on
Strategy for Communication Outreach in Nanotechnology
(Brussels, 6th February 2007)
Interested citizens and stakeholders are invited to express comments, opinions and suggestions by end June 2007 to .
A final document will be then published.
Table of contents
KEY-ISSUES FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY 9
PART 1 – SETTING THE SCENE 10
1.1 BACKGROUND 10
1.2 RATIONALE 11
1.3 GOAL 11
1.4 "APPROPRIATE" COMMUNICATION? 11
1.5 METHODOLOGY 13
How does success look like 13
I. Where are we now? 13
II. Where do we want to be? 15
III. How do we get there? 16
PART 2: DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY 17
2.1 INTRODUCTION 17
2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EXERCISE 19
2.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 20
2.4 DISCUSSION RESULTS 21
2.5 CONCLUSIONS: STRATEGY FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY 28
2.6 Strategy for communication outreach in nanotechnology in a nutshell 31
ANNEXES 35
A.1 AUDIENCES 35
A.2 MESSAGES 37
A.3 PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS 39
A.4 PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS BY ISSUE 44
A.5 NANOTECHNOLOGY: FUTURE SCENARIOS? 45
A.6 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 48
A.7 OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY 49
1. What is Open Space Technology? 49
2. Setting up a workshop 50
3. Phases of the Workshop 50
Authors 53
KEY-ISSUES FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY
How does success look like? Operative recommendations for FP7…
I. Where are we now: assessment of current communication outreach and related needs
- What do media say?
- What do people say?
- What does industry say?
- What do other stakeholders say?
II. Where do we want to be: identify outcomes e.g. attitudinal change in target audiences
- What do we want to do?
ü Appropriate communication
ü Dialogue with civil society
- What audiences are to target?
Ø Believers
Ø Technophiles
Ø Prudent supporters
Ø Not for Me
Ø Disoriented
Ø Concerned
- What are we expecting from them?
§ Input and warning
§ Change in attitude
§ Awareness
§ Engagement
III. How do we get there: identify audience-oriented messages, sources and vehicles
- What is relevant and appropriate for the EC and target audiences to know?
Appropriate communication
· Knowing audiences
· Nano is not magic
· Nano is new phase of tech exploiting nanoscale effects
· It deals with new markets but also impacts the people
· It can be controlled and driven consciously
Dialogue with society
• SAFETY: how will this affect my health, lifestyle and my environment?
• PRIVACY: what is this stuff? Can I trust information? Is my freedom affected?
• ENGAGEMENT & DECISION-MAKING: how am I being treated?
• ETHICS: is it acceptable what are we going to do with that?
• BENEFIT: does all this stuff really improve my quality of life?
- Which role for the EC? Who should do what and how?
Who: EC launching activities via FP7 calls; Vehicles: written or audio-visual, electronic, media, commercialisation-like techniques, interactive mechanisms, art
- What communication/participatory mechanisms are appropriate for dialogue?
Theatre, Interactive meetings, polls, Consultative panels, Itinerant events (eg. nano-truck), Citizens’ juries, Consensus declaration, Multi-criteria mapping, Web forum/blogs
PART 1 – SETTING THE SCENE
1.1 BACKGROUND
Generally speaking, “direct dialogue with the public on science should move from being an optional add-on to science-based policy making and to the activities of research organisations and learned institutions, and should become a normal and integral part of the process”( reworked from “Science & Society report, S&T House of Lords Committee, 2000 & 2002”)
Communication and dialogue are the pre-requisites to generate debate between individuals and groups, thus creating a climate where people discuss sensitive scientific and technological issues in the way in which they discuss other issues of public and social policy. Such a dialogue is expected to contribute to EU decision-making, simultaneously stimulating both interest and awareness on the societal implications for research. Clearly, this is particularly true for nanotechnologies and nanosciences, and even more for "converging" technologies and disciplines, which means the synergetic area including nano-bio-info-cogno domains. This process should also enable researchers becoming more open to communicate with the public, promoting their deeper engagement in the production of easy-to-read articles, television and radio programmes, web chat sites, etc. helping science and research to becoming a normal facet of our life, rather than something different and difficult.
Generally speaking, there is a need to re-address the approach for communicating science and technology, so far based on “public understanding of science”. Evidence has shown that this concept is no longer enough to engage today’s more sceptical and less deferential public on science and technology related issues. The main reason roots on the condescending, even demeaning, tone which, so far from engaging the public in debate, tends to turn people off. Indeed, it will be better to address a "scientific understanding of the public".
Clearly, a new mood of communication is required, based on dialogue: instead of the one way, top down process of seeking to increase peoples’ understanding of science, a two way iterating dialogue must be addressed, where those seeking to communicate the wonders of their science, also listen to the perceptions, concerns and expectations of society. Dialogue requires ears as well as voices, and number of ears should double the number of mouths, as most ancient spiritual traditions suggest.
Overall, science and technology systems are deeply embedded in today’s life, and nanotechnology and nanosciences are becoming their cutting edge in the next future. Clearly, they involve crucial opportunities and drawbacks for the whole society, thus it cannot be solely left to scientists or technology suppliers: this is particularly true for “hot” issues like new technologies, whose novelty is usually associated with risks and opportunities, often over- or understated. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences strongly evocate contradictory feelings, ranging from enthusiasm to mistrust, due to their high degree of novelty, their difficulty to mental mapping and their hazy symbolic representation.
In this light, conventional communication is no longer adequate: appropriate communication patterns are required to engage appropriate forces into a dialogue with civil society able to identify those patterns which are desirable, where opportunities, risks and uncertainties are properly addressed. This should enable to settle a sound basis to reaching consensus, achieving sustainable governance and social acceptance for nanotechnologies and nanosciences.