 Nanotech to fix other existing environment problems
 Nanotech for energy – fuel cells, solar cells, splitting H
2
O
 Series of benefits – H
2
O, water, energy, health o Couples with risks – not for everyone in world – rich nations
 Health & medicine – drugs, targeted to cancer, better understanding of biology, tailored delivery of health care, sensors to monitor health at home
 Reduce our dependence on rare materials
 Recycle and biodegradation
 Fusion of researchers – chemistry, phys, bio, math, eng
 Cheaper & sustainable manufacturing
 Self destruct particles to avoid
 Food
 Medical – o Better medical drugs – improve quality of life – new limbs o Medical – general
 Energy – o Better solar cells – thin

o Totally new energy source
 Talk on size of nano – gravity
 Sci-fi becoming reality
 Self-assembly – creating rare resources
 Better space age technology
 Reducing cleaning/washing
 Entertainment – clothes with lights etc built in – smart clothes
 Change how we interact with technology
 Bioremediation
 Oil-eating bacteria
 Better therapy (medicines)
 Human enhancement (bone replacement)
 More efficient and effective construction materials (planes, buildings etc)
 Grey goo, self assembly
 Energy (more efficient, capture and storage) lighting LED’s
 Military applications (more efficient and destructive weapons)
 Environment (cleaner water)
 Misuse of nanotechnologies (abuse)
 Lighter, better electronics (computers)
 Good for certain areas – not sure about the body and coming into contact with the body
 Goes everywhere else too – water, changes in fish
 New and don’t understand it but are expected to accept it
 If you don’t know about it, how can you understand the possibilities
 Use of filters to help filtering in the environment
 It’s something else that can be patented and controlled
 Usages such as fixing car dents, rust, self-cleaning
 Uses in cancer treatment, imaging techniques, growing organs

 Producing new weapons/power
 Nano robots
 Medical
 Cosmetics – finer, better
 Unlimited possibilities
 Weapons
 Mass communications
 Unknown
 Construction
 Insufficient information
 IT
 Advanced medicine
 Solar cells
 Battery
 Cancer causing
 Incorporating safety by design during development (whole of life cycle)
 Keeping pace with the technology and keeping risk identification up to speed
 Loss of control
 An adequate ethics committee
 Regulation of corporate excesses – self interest, not public interest
 Overuse of technology (nano-silver)
 Military use of nanotech
 Who makes the decision about use – slow regulation
 Appropriate applications to prevent misuse

 Fast paced evaluation to keep up with the production of new technologies
 Who controls funding for research – military, company, they want a particular answer
 Healthy food
 How to benefit public – good – what it will do for future
 Regulators of products – how do they keep up with products/changes to protect us
 Take away the scare
 Don’t want to hear about cane toads
 Accumulative affect through food
 Monitoring waste/release – mass production
 Talking about nanotechnology
 Making reusable products
 Regulation is slowly and lagging
 Lack of money for public interest in science
 Money drives it – money is in weapons and pointless consumer goods
 Eco toxicity is dangerous
 Nano cane toad – by analogy with cane toads, nano studies might get out and be impossible to replicate
 Challenge’s public fear
 Regulation of chemicals
 When you get better properties it can become more dangerous so we need to manage this
 No challenges that are different to any other challenges we’re faced with over time
 Challenge to educate children on safe use of technology
 Social issues
 Political issues
 Cost factor – some afford it, some won’t be able to, trying to make it equitable for the particular use

 Challenge proving it’s safe
 Challenge in explaining what its about – specialists in different areas so difficult in explaining consequences
 Predicting consequences – while it’s happening
 Risk – who is in a position to judge risks and how to go forward
 Is the public made aware that there is a risk
 Rapid communication
 Political discussions
 Public trust
 Education/awareness
 Confidence in how, why is it safe – might take 100 years, long-term
 No secondary effects – how do we know
 What risk
 What is safe
 Education – what we are exposed to or what will not affect us
 Understanding of life cycle
 Where it is used
 Facts – risks and benefits
 Trust – need to be given all the details and information at the correct level
 What am I being protected from
 Transparency in regulation – what is being done at the moment
 What products have nano technology – product labelling
 Risk assessments – making accessible to public to make informed decisions on usage

 Generally more advertisement and propaganda as the majority of the general public are unaware of the extent of research and funds being invested in developing nanotechnology
 Labelling – we need info and risk management
 Certification that its healthy – documentary from different background/views
 Wanting to know what is in products and how safe they are
 Certification that it can be trusted
 Transparency – who, what, when, where, how
 Democratically verified information (internet)
 Who is really going to benefit from the wide-spread use of products containing nano-materials
 Social values
 Outreach management programs – getting basic general info out to public
 Speed of technology v outrage mgmt – different speeds
 Evaluation of the true cost to society to enable a cost-benefit analysis – getting academia, law etc involved, not just scientists
 What regulation have we actually got
 No integrated peak bodies
 More accessible info and integrated approach
 You are never going to know what you are going to regulate until it’s too late
 Slow down the introduction of it
 Speed up the research, slow down commercialisation
 Need a moratorium until the science catches up with regulation
 Release of products as a life cycle perspective
 The public requires information about risks and benefits
 Internet information
 Teach people in school
 We’re suspicious of some things, not others – red bull no, nanotech yes
 There’s fine print
 There needs to be transparency

 Young people are risk-taking
 Would like to know areas of research
 Knowledge of the forums for discussion and who is running the forum and why
 Where is nano and what is it used in at the present – for what purpose
 Benefits, needs, outcomes, risks
 Who is paying and why
 Who decides what projects go ahead in what criteria
 How quickly do nano objects bio-degrade
 How to get more confidence in nanotechnology
 Trust? Scientists, regulators, companies won’t do it on their own
 FOE – call for new regulatory body
 Product labels, open access to info
 Access to research paper and way to summarize results
 Science panels
 Surveys
 How it applies to us now
 Regulatory bodies – who are they
 Viruses – who, why
 Need to know what it is capable of
 Who is looking at the safety

Needs to be regulated as the environment doesn't need more threats - reduce waste - reuse - recycle
At the end of the discussion, I still have not drawn a conclusion as to how I feel
I need to have more information that is easier to digest
It's coming - be prepared
Nanotechnology is so broad. More information is required to make a decision. What does nanotechnology & environment have to do with one another?
It needs to be managed successfully
Exciting new developments - hopefully manageable risks
There is not a lot of information available to the general public
It is my view that it is too early to begin to understand the implications. We fear the nano-cane toad
Would like to know more as predominantly negative/fearful views were shared by participants and discussion to learn more was cut short
It is not possible to know the true risks until years and years have passed. Trust, honesty in development & possible outcomes
Need more transparency to build trust - not in hand of free market capitalism
No new cane toads please. Nanotechnology has the benefit to change our world
I fear that not enough is known of the life cycle of various nano-particles
A broad new technology that is due for an educated progression of science
Had no idea about nanotechnology until tonight. Positive about the good it does but still worried about the unknown
Free market will find the benefits but not the risks. Regulation must ensure only safe ways are licensed. Consumers must get full info & product labelling
I think it is part of technology and world growth in development
Had limited knowledge until tonight
Concerned about how quickly it is being developed and risks. But the possibilities for the future are exciting
Still unsure about it

Not familiar with topic, so still learning and leaning on my views
Endless possibilities. Got to ask why? Why are we doing it unless there is a benefit or improvement on conventional technology?
Need careful regulation and coordination of effects over the various specialties
I'm concerned that the environmental risks have yet to be adequately assessed
I believe more research and regulation should go into nanotechnology before it is used in commercial products
There should be more advertisement and more effort in creating public awareness about nanotechnology and nanoscience as I believe the majority of people have no idea what its all about as well as the positives and negatives
Very good, take away the scare
I think its important, but needs to be well guided
Information should be made available for the every day person
Absolutely required
What impacts are the community concerns going to make? Purely for record?
Great to hear a diverse range of opinions
Community still thinks nanotechnology is in the realm of scientists
The community needs to be informed and involved and also have a say in what is being developed and why
There is not enough, more is required. But needs to be aimed at the general public
The more community input and views presented, the better
We need a better functioning public interest
Needs to be transparent and targeted at the correct level
My experience shows some of these forums are productive and others are merely a rubber stamp for decisions already made
I think its important to give insight to innovative topics and technologies to the community
This forum was great and hopefully it can be publicised a lot more so that weare more aware
I found this world café format frustrating and lots of wooly thinking sidetrackers
More public awareness needed

Public awareness needs to be agrivated
I think it should be left to scientists but new developments quality/risk assessed before being exposed to the public
The community needs to be educated about the pros and cons of nanotechnology
A bit more would be nice
Need more CE to enable education and informed debate/ownership
There needs to be genuine community consultation rather than just collecting the communities views in order to work out how to best 'spin' the technology
I learnt a lot tonight. Was good to see it wasn't overly scientific and generally easy to understand which is important if you want the general public to be interested and have an opinion/awareness
Give more info to start with. Question 1 was difficult to answer for the public if you don't know much about nanotechnology
I found it enjoyable. Perhaps seperate the groups before to ensure an even spread
It went fast. Just when you were on to a topic it was time to move on
Good event. I am not a science person but felt engaged especially during the second part
It was interesting and not what I was expecting
Well organised, brief and effective presentations, rotation and mixing of opinions
Great introduction to the topic. I would like more information presented in layman's terms
Tonight was too brief. The introductions by the panel were far too short and the group discussions only just began to kick off when time was called
It has peaked my interest and I would like to know more. The event felt rushed and raised more questions than were answered. A whole day event like this would would have been great & more informative
Very informative
Perfect - maybe form interest group after to exchange details
More time needed, maybe more info from presenters
Labelling products, not just nano
Well structured, well educated. I learnt a lot and expressed my own opinions and thought in relation to the topic
Very informative and interesting and would love to hear more about nanotechnology through the media etc

Should have presented actual info. Maybe ask for comment on a draft proposal. The captured reponses were not rigorous
Forum was good, run very well
Well conducted with broad aspects delivered from scientists sources
Really enjoyed the interaction and mix of people. Good to get different points of views and I learnt a lot
Very good
Great speakers, was planned really well
Very interesting. Good spectrum of panel members. Controlled and run very well
Needed a lot more info at start on specifics of nano from one person as question 1 was almost impossible to answer with no knowledge base. Lots of assumed knowledge
Insufficient information
Enable clean, green technology
Great potential
Reduce the risk. Long-term monitoring
I'm a scientist working in this area and we need to do more to ensure nanotechnology is safe
Need to look more into safety assessment of nanotechnology
Scientists have it under control
It is a technology that needs to be monitored/regulated just like any other
Some exciting promises. But doubt that it will all be done in the true public interest
Nano scientist
Needs regulation
Predominantly positive
Great potential but must be regulated. All potentials explored, values questioned
Important to control the potential impact of nanotechnology on the environment
Worried that business interests will over-ride efforts and funding to protect the environment. Especially from trivial use of nanotechnologies and these products being discarded
More life cycle studies are needed

Must be regulated like other chemicals, but the right nanometers must be determined
Similar to all other technology - it should be regulated
Research should be carried out urgently and with due care
It's all good
Needs more long term research to provide qualified answers
Five people did not provide an answer for this question
Crucial
Very important to build trust
Preassumed that public is scared of nanotechnology
Public Awareness
Nanotechnology should not be treated differently to other technologies. Mobile phones
(RSI), chemicals etc can have health problems too
We need more. Especially for younger people eg School children
Most people are too ill informed to have anything more than a cursory input
Generally quite poor because of lack of understanding
Virtually non-existent
Essential
Yes
Community needs to be better informed and feel that it can trust in the framework in place
Very important - but recognition is slow and needs the capactity to build and work with representative groups
There needs to be effective and inclusive community engagement
Very important - but there is a big gap in knowledge
Communication of science is essential
Too much misinformation is present both from manufacturers and NGO's
The main community fear I came away with was a distrust of the greed of corporations.
That they would do the wrong thing if left unchecked. I was disappointed that there was no mention of the fact that there is a regulatory body. The fact that nano is not left unchecked would assure a lot of fears
Must be developed/advanced to a rapid, effective and affordable level

Very interesting to hear the views from the public
It still seems one sided, more about 'educating'. It also needs to happen before the scientists have been funded to work on specific topics
Not good enough
Three people did not provide an answer for this question
More time to explore fewer issues in more depth
More basic introduction to public about nanotechnology
More 'ordinary' people needed
Better prep of panel
Needs more time allocated to round table discussions
It was very good
A great start. More emphasis on public voices and beliefs and concerns
Better questions - question 1 not very useful
There's never enough time. Panel could have been better utilised
I think it was very positive - shame not more 'public' attendance
A good event - if there are more general public members involved
Things were starting to warm up when we stopped. Need longer time. Some people dominated discussion, need an experienced moderator at each table
Needed a regulator on the panel
Bit more time for discussion among the groups helps
Not enough time per session/question. No representatives from regulatory bodies
Keep them coming
Need more time to discuss ideas against each of the three questions. The dynamics/discussion was just warming up when we had to stop
Seems very useful, perhaps more of them
Have an informal 'mini-conference' on before hand, where scientists that are good communicators show short presentations on real examples
Should take this as an opportunity to provide the public with more scientific information