Report from the Workshop:
Communication Outreach in Nanotechnology:
from recommendations to action
(Brussels, 24-25 October, 2007)
Editors: Matteo Bonazzi and Jennifer Palumbo
European Commission
Unit "Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies"
Date of publication: January 2008
This publication can be downloaded from:
http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology
1
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
2
Authors
Frank Burnet, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of West England, Bristol, UK
Giovanni Carrada, Private Consultant, Rome, Italy
Laurent Chicoineau, La Casemate – CCSTI, Grenoble, France
Sebastian Cremer, Lekkerwerken, Wiesbaden, Germany
Enrico De Capoa, Le Nuvole Società Cooperativa, Naples, Italy
Inge De Prins, COST Office, Brussels, Belgium
Catherine Franche, Ecsite, Brussels, Belgium
Alexei Grinbaum, CEA-Saclay SPEC/LARSIM, Paris, France
Paul Hix, Deutsches Museum, München, Germany
Claudia Kaiser, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy, Wuppertal, Germany
Tom Kersevan, Brida Art Collective, Sempas, Slovenia
Guglielmo Maglio, Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza, Naples, Italy
Rosina Malagrida I Escalas, Barcelona Science Park, Barcelona, Spain
Sendi Mango, Brida Art Collective, Sempas, Slovenia
Alison Mohr, Institute for Science & Society, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
Cynthia Needham, ICAN Productions, United States
Donal O'Mathuna, School of Nursing, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Jurij Pavlica, Brida Art Collective, Sempas, Slovenia
Helena Rodrigues, Fabrica Centro Ciencia Viva, Aveiro, Portugal
Maddalena Scandola, National Research Center S3 (INFM-CNR) Modena, Italy
Stephan Schaller, Triple Innova, Wuppertal, Germany
Melanie Smallmann, Think-Lab, London, United Kingdom
Carola Sondermann, European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy
Piotr Swiatek, COST Office, Brussels, Belgium
3
Table of Contents
FOREWORD......................................................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 8
PART I: LOGIC TREE ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Workshop I : where are we now & where do we want to be? ......................................................................... 10
Open Consultation............................................................................................................................................ 11
Workshop II : How do we get there? ................................................................................................................ 11
PART II: BACKGROUND INFO AND FRAMEWORK FOR THE SECOND WORKSHOP ................. 12
II.1 Background information ............................................................................................................................ 12
I . APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION .................................................................................................... 13
I –TO WHOM SHOULD WE COMMUNICATE? ............................................................. 13
II – WHAT SHOULD WE COMMUNICATE ABOUT? .................................................... 15
III – HOW SHOULD WE COMMUNICATE? ................................................................... 16
II. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT THROUGH DIALOGUE ...................................................................... 18
I – WHO SHOULD WE ENGAGE? ................................................................................. 19
II – WHAT ARE THE RELEVANT TOPICS FOR ENGAGEMENT? .............................. 19
III – HOW SHOULD WE ENGAGE AUDIENCES? ......................................................... 19
II.2 Framework of the second workshop .......................................................................................................... 20
I - Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 20
II - Participants ........................................................................................................................................... 20
III - Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 20
PART III: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................. 23
III.1 Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 24
I - "PROFESSIONAL TIME" activities for specific target groups .............................................................. 25
II - "LEISURE TIME" Direct outreach activities for the general public ..................................................... 31
III.2 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 34
SYNOPSIS OF WORKSHOP RESULTS......................................................................................................... 35
ANNEX ................................................................................................................................................................ 40
AUTHORS ........................................................................................................................................................... 44
4
FOREWORD
Outreach, open 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 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".
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 growth and competitiveness, they address also the role of
science in society, which has several peculiarities in the new field of nanotechnology. ECfunded 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 presumably within the current FP7,
which will last until 2013.
1
2
COM(2004) 338 http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology/actionplan.htm
COM (2005) 243 http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology/actionplan.htm
5
I am glad to present now this report summarizes the results of a one-year long process
articulated through two different workshops intercalated with an open web-based
consultation on communication outreach in nanotechnology: (i) the first workshop
(organized on 6th February 2007) focused on the main issues to frame a strategy; (ii) the
open consultation (from May to October 2007) provided a fundamental input in terms of
comments and questions to be addressed in the (iii) second workshop (organized the 25-26th
October 2007), identifying a set of potential actions to be developed by the EC. These events
have been carried out with the participation of 48 international experts from the fields of
opinion-making, science communication outreach, social engagement, design, arts and
nanotechnology.
A crucial input has been provided from the web consultation open during six months on the
nanotechnology website of the European Commission on the results of the first workshop. In
fact, it has enabled to collect hundreds of comments from the lay public, allowing a wide
variety of views, opinions, expectations and concerns from a broad audience to be integrated
into the second workshop, whose results will be published on the web for a second open
consultation: this process will allow the European Commission to feed a continuing open
forum platform for facilitating the dialogue with civil society on nanotechnology.
A writing group prepared the initial draft of this report based on workshop discussions, and
this final paper was reviewed by all workshop participants. 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.
From the operational standpoint, both workshops consisted of an introductory lecture to
identify objectives, methodologies and issues to be fine tuned through a first open discussion
with participants. The different issues have therefore been clustered into themes responding
to specific needs (i) from appropriate audiences, (ii) for crucial messages and (iii) specific
vehicles to be addressed by activities of communication outreach.
This process has been facilitated by a set of open space techniques carried out by
Commission officers enabling the discussion of themes by groups of experts flexibly selfclustering on the basis of different parameters (interest, expertise and challenge). A second
open discussion aimed at presenting, refining and linking the results from the different group
discussions in order to reach consensus. Finally, a conclusive plenary session enabled to
structure the conclusions into a harmonized overall vision shared by all groups.
This exercise enabled to identify which audiences are crucial, 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 youngsters, selected
stakeholders and tough-to-reach audiences. Assessment of current communication and
insight of desirable outcomes have been outlined, exploring appropriate participatory
mechanisms promoting dialogue with the broad civil society, which are specific to
nanotechnology. Synthesizing, the importance of identifying key-audiences, key-messages
and communication multipliers have been stressed as crucial issues for developing
appropriate communication and dialogue on nanotechnology with civil society.
6
Assessing current communication experiences and outlining insight of desirable have
emerged as two additional upshots of this exercise. This has allowed a preliminary
exploration of the most appropriate participatory mechanisms promoting a balanced dialogue
with the broad civil society. As a result, recommendations for actions emerge also for
specific actions to be examined under future FP7 calls.
In my view, the outcomes of this process are instructive and valuable for continuing to better
and better shape actions aiming at promoting and consolidating a culture of safe and
responsible nanotechnology development and use. Analogous actions from other countries
and organizations at national or international level will allow confronting and benchmarking
the conclusions that the Authors have reached and that are here published, so to identify best
practices. This document has been uploaded on http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/ in
order to keep the discussion open. All citizens and stakeholders, in Europe and beyond, are
welcome to continue expressing comments, opinions and suggestions.
Renzo Tomellini
Head of Unit
Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies
renzo.tomellini@ec.europa.eu
7
INTRODUCTION
The European Commission aims to promote an integrated, safe, responsible and socially
acceptable approach for the development and use of nanosciences and nanotechnology. In
order to carry out this goal, it is crucial to find ways of informing publics about the results and
implications of such studies. At the same time, it is necessary to learn more about public
opinion on nanotechnology and to build mechanisms that will allow open and accessible
channels of communication to be put in place in order to connect different groups of
stakeholders, with a view to fostering engagement and dialogue in society.
To this end, a number of actions on the communication and outreach of nanotechnology are
being carried out in the EC, starting from the design and implementation of a
"Communication Plan for N&N". In order to ensure that the actions planned cover the real
necessities of professionals and society, the Commission has organised a series of
consultations to collect recommendations from experts in the field of science communication
on the best way to proceed with the communication of nanosciences and nanotechnologies.
These recommendations will help shape the calls for proposals that are periodically issued to
fund appropriate actions in communication and dialogue.
An introductory workshop was carried out in February 2007 with some twenty-five experts
from science centres and other science communication organisations. The ensuing
recommendations were collected in a report that was published online for public consultation,
to which hundreds of comments were contributed.
A second workshop was then organised, with the help of experts from the fields of philosophy
and sociology of science, science communication, science centre professionals, as well as
artists and graphic designers. The objective of the exercise was to detail appropriate actions in
science communication and dialogue building with society. The recommendations from the
first workshop and from the open consultation were collected and fed into the second
workshop.
The present document represents a report of the results obtained from the second workshop in
communication outreach and the goals inspiring the communication activities of the European
Commission in appropriate communication and dialogue on nanotechnology, structured in an
introductory workshop, an open consultation, and a second in-depth workshop.
In the first part of the document, "The logic tree", we aim to give an overview of the structure
at the basis of the communication activity through a synthetic representation of the underlying
logic tree. In this section, the backbone of the exercise is described in the form of synthetic
questions pinpointing the goals and objectives at the basis of the experts' consultation on
nanotechnology communication.
Part II: Background info and framework
In the second part of the document, titled "Background info and framework for the second
workshop", we describe the objectives in more detail, with the addition of background
materials that have been assembled from literature and the results of the previous
communication activities. The materials included in this section were elaborated in
preparation for the second workshop. The first chapter describes the background information
available through literature and results of previous communication exercises on the topics to
8
be discussed by participants. These were offered to the experts before the meeting, with the
objective of informing them, framing their discussion along the common set of objectives and
sparking discussion within the groups. The second chapter describes the framework of the
second workshop, including a description of the methodology implemented and of the panel
of invited experts.
In the third part, "Results and Conclusions", the results of the group discussions are presented
in the form of recommended activities to be funded by the European Commission in
nanotechnology communication. These results are first described in a detailed form then
summarised in a table. The conclusions that can be drawn from these results will help shape
the future calls for projects in the field of nanotechnology communication, by identifying
important target groups and issues and proposing relevant mechanisms to address them.
9
PART I: LOGIC TREE



The introductory workshop on Communication outreach in nanotechnology was
organised by the European Commission in February 2007 as a means of collecting
information on trends and best practices in science communication that could prove
particularly well suited to the special case of nanotechnology. Some thirty experts
from science centres, universities and other branches of communication were invited
to give input and generate ideas on the following two themes: where are we now and
where do we want to go.
The results of the first workshop were published on the website:
http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/consultation.htm in the form of an open
consultation, whereby readers were invited to submit comments and suggestions on
possible ways forward. The principal results of this consultation are synthesised.
In order to gain a deeper understanding of needs and best practices in the science
communication community, a second workshop was organised in October 2007. The
twenty-five experts invited (some of which had already taken part in the first meeting,
whereas others were convening for the first time) reflected and discussed on the most
appropriate ways of addressing different groups of public.
Workshop I :
where are we now & where do we want to be?
Starting point: What is the current situation?
 The media love nano, but are now more realistic on risks
 'Laypeople' show poor awareness and engagement
 Research shows nano-promises in medicine, energy,
materials, food and food contact materials, but also
needs more research & regulation
 Stakeholders show different attitudes from concern, to
caution and trust
Objective: Identifying appropriate strategies
 To provide Europe with an integrated, safe and
responsible approach to nanotechnology
 To promote appropriate communication, behavioural
change, dialogue and engagement of all civil society
through target audiences
 To identify who should do what, who should be
involved and how
Results: Which recommendations for the EC?
 Need for the EC to gain an in-depth knowledge of the
publics/audiences
 Provide accurate and accessible sources of information
 Develop appropriate and innovative communication
tools for tough-to-reach audiences, using informal
methods and art
 Implement appropriate participatory mechanisms to
guarantee dialogue
10
Open Consultation
Starting point and objective: Collecting feedback from a wider public
 Open Consultation launched on the results of the
introductory workshop
 Report published on the website:
http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/consultation.
htm
 Six-month period to collect comments, contact email
provided
 Hundreds of comments received
Results: Identifying main recommendations
 invest in transparency and provide diverse opinions and
points of view in communication,
 open multiple information channels between different
stakeholder groups
 involve young people in activities on nanotechnology in
order to increase the number of students choosing
natural sciences and engineering
 involve citizens from the very early steps, to ensure that
nanotechnologies develop in accordance to the ethical
standards of society and its human values, thus
responding to real needs.
Workshop II : How do we get there?
Starting point: integrating points of view
 needs of the European Commission
 recommendations from participants to the introductory
workshop
 comments and recommendations from the open
consultation
Objective: Identifying appropriate actions
 designing participatory methodology integrating
multidisciplinary participants
 EC appropriate communication: to whom, on what and
how should it be carried out?
 Fostering engagement through dialogue: who should it
involve, on what subjects and which methods should it
entail?
Results:
 Framework for shaping future EC actions (e.g. calls for
proposals, consultations, EC communication plan for
nanotechnology)
11
PART II:
BACKGROUND INFO AND FRAMEWORK
FOR THE SECOND WORKSHOP
The following section includes materials elaborated in preparation for the second workshop.
The first chapter describes the background information available through literature and results
of previous communication exercises on the topics to be discussed by participants. The
second chapter describes the framework of the second workshop, including a description of
the methodology implemented and of the panel of invited experts.
II.1 Background information
The result of the overall exercise is to provide the European Commission with a set of
operative key-recommendations to promote appropriate communication and dialogue
on nanotechnology. These recommendations should be implemented by the Commission into
operative funding instruments (e.g. specific calls and other funding instruments under the 7th
Framework Programme).
In order to ensure that proper attention is given to all aspects of the communication effort, we
shall address one question at a time, bearing in mind that they are in fact interdependent. In
this section, preliminary studies and considerations are outlined. These were offered to
participants as background materials to help shape their discussion and fuel the exchange of
ideas. Two main axes are identified to be explored by the workshop to provide the EC with
operational answers, developed by dedicated panels:
I. Appropriate communication
i) to whom should we communicate? This section explores ways of knowing key-audiences in
order to determine whether or not there are special needs to be filled in certain groups,
and if so which groups they concern
ii) what should we communicate about? This section is concerned with identifying crucial
messages that need to be included in communication activities about nanotechnology
iii) how should we communicate? This section deals with developing appropriate tools to
address issues and audiences effectively
II. Fostering engagement through dialogue
i) who should we engage? This section proposes groups that are particularly important when it
comes to engagement
ii) what are the relevant topic for engagement? This part examines different subjects and
situations in order to single out which are most important or even urgent in engaging
audiences
iii) how should we engage audiences? This sections is centred on identifying appropriate
participatory mechanisms to initiate and maintain dialogue.
12
I . APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION
ensure availability of reliable information to raise awareness in appropriate audiences
A change of attitudes and behaviour in terms of raising awareness and encouraging
engagement is the desired outcome of the overall exercise on appropriate communication,
which should allow the implementation of mechanisms to foster dialogue with society.
What should be communicated to whom and how is the formula for framing appropriate
communication.
- Which audiences to target?
- What do we want to communicate?
- What do we want to learn/hear?
- How are we going to communicate?
- What do they think and what do they need from us?
I –TO WHOM SHOULD WE COMMUNICATE?
Identifying groups of public and segmenting audiences according to their interest, knowledge
and relationship to nanotechnology is one of the key factors of communication. It is clear, for
example, that children and youngsters do not respond to the same kind of messages as adults,
while the 'adults' group itself has a very high number of relevant sub-groups which should be
addressed in an appropriate way if they are to be reached and engaged.
In the first communication workshop, experts recommended devising mechanisms to learn
more about the public and relevant divisions within. Therefore, the second workshop aimed to
identify important target audiences and their needs and expectations, or to determine
appropriate mechanisms to do so if further studies should prove necessary.
Some possible outcomes were provided to the participants at the beginning of the workshop
as a guideline to begin the creative process:
 Funding surveys, studies and activities to get an insider's viewpoint on the audiences'
expectations, concerns, needs and beliefs (attitudinal tough-to-reach audiences,
immigrants, youngsters, NGOs, Non-EU stakeholders, communicators)
 Fund foresight and prospective studies on social and cultural impacts of
nanotechnologies and other new emerging technologies on different audiences
 Fund studies on habits of special audiences, e.g. youngsters, tough-to-reach, notresponsive, immigrants, non-EU communicators.
Recent studies in science communication have proven that there is not one public, there are
many publics; how can this argument prove helpful in determining “which audience should
my activity be aimed at?” This will depend upon the specific objectives of our activity and the
range of audiences is as wide as the possible spectrum of objectives. If we have carefully
focused our objectives, then it will be much clearer to see who the critical audiences are going
to be that will allow us to meet these objectives.
Audiences must be segmented to shape effective messages and vehicles to attain them.
Before deciding which audiences are important in communicating N&N, it will help to
identify those we MUST, SHOULD or WOULD LIKE to communicate with. The following
principles and checklist can help to do this.
13
Principles to prioritise audiences, i.e. those who:
• might benefit from the research (e.g. patient associations)
• might "lose" from the research (e.g. environmentalist NGOs)
• have relevant expertise (e.g. academy)
• will be crucial to secure cooperation (e.g. media)
Checklist to identify key audiences (groups relevant to more questions are critical to reach)
1. Which individuals/organisations have previously been involved in communication
activities?
2. Which individuals/organisations may be directly affected by N&N, policy, or action?
3. Which individuals/organisations may be angry if they are not consulted about N&N
activities?
4. Which individuals/organisations may have important information, ideas, or opinions which
would assist the N&N communication?
5. Which individuals/organisations should be involved to ensure that they have communicated
with a balanced range of opinion?
6. Which individuals/organisations may not want to have input, but do need to know what the
N&N is doing?
One possible approach is targeting stakeholders or key-audiences, e.g. youngsters, tough-toreach, handicapped, women, patient associations, researchers, industry, academy, research
organisations, multipliers, media. Audiences can be identified with stakeholders, i.e. those
groups deeply influencing the decision-making process in N&N.
WHAT THEY SAY
WHAT THEY DO
Industry
Risk assessment is adequate
Setting guidelines
Start-ups
Assessing risk is expensive
Reluctant to raise safety issues
NGOs
Focus on risk
Ask for more testing/regulation
Regul.bodies
Learning curve
Enhancing current regulation
Insurers
Dialogue on risk
Worrying publicly
Researchers
Funding are needed
Studying public attitudes
Media
Science-fiction products
Hunting stories
Consumers
magic, out of control
Disorientation
Examples of possible ways to reach out to target groups:
KEY-AUDIENCES, e.g. YOUNGSTERS:




Fund surveys on habits to get the message across;
Promote tetrahedral model of interaction school-museum-labs-policymakers;
Framing a reference professor of choice-making on benefits, risks and limits of nano
Considering nano into curricula
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, e.g. patient associations, immigrants
14




Launch surveys on needs and sensitiveness of patient associations
Study habits and cultural models of immigrants
Fund co-productions of exhibitions and activities;
Communicate nanotechnology through food, music and movies
KEY-STAKEHOLDERS, e.g. communicators, opinion-makers
 Funding for exchange and mobility of communicators
 Shape "light" participatory tools (e.g. "Decide")
Promote access to international activities (e.g. NISE-like efforts)
II – WHAT SHOULD WE COMMUNICATE ABOUT?
The term "nanotechnology" refers to a multidisciplinary branch of science and technology
which includes a broad range of applications and products. Therefore, it is clear that
oversimplified messages, such as ‘Nano is bad’ would be misleading and counterproductive,
like saying that 'technology is bad’. Instead, it's important to stress that the development of
nano research and applications brings with it a whole range of issues and possible
consequences for daily life, most of which will probably contain some beneficial aspects and
some drawbacks.
In the perspective of outreach, at least these messages should be the basis of what should be
considered relevant for appropriate communication on nanotechnology:
 Nano is not magic
 Nano is a new phase of technology exploiting nanoscale effects
 It deals with new markets, health, safety, privacy, ethics, socioeconomic divide
 It must and can be controlled and driven consciously
It is problematic to generalise about the kinds of questions audiences may raise, as they vary
from situation to situation. Researchers tend to have difficulty anticipating such concerns
(“Nanotechnology, Risk & Sustainability", 2005). Still, attention should be focused on the
messages associated with the following crucial issues related to nanotechnology which should
be dealt with adequately.
1. SAFETY: Health, lifestyle and environmental concerns
• What are the benefits & danger to my health and that of my family (especially due to nanoparticles)?
• Can I drink the water, eat the food, etc.? How will these be improved or worsened by N&N?
• What can I do to find out if my health has been affected?
• What can I do to reduce the damage already done?
• What can I do to prevent further damage?
• What about my children?
• We are already at risk because of X. Will N&N increase our risk?
• How will this improve or affect our quality of life/property values, the stigma of X attached to our
community, trucks on our local roads, etc.?
• How will this improve or affect environmental health, integrity and aesthetics?
• To what extent are we already exposed to nano products, both those manufactured and produced
naturally? This gets at the fact that some of the interest in nano is arising due to better knowledge of all
things at the nano level.
2. PRIVACY: Data and information concerns
• How safe are we? What can N&N improve or worsen?
• What is the worst case scenario?
• Will nano-capabilities increase surveillance, thus jeopardising everyday freedoms?
• What do these numbers mean and how did we get them?
15
• How do we know our studies are correct?
• What about other expert opinions on this issue?
• How does the level compare to international standards?
• We say X can't happen. Why not?
3. ENGAGEMENT & DECISION-MAKING: Process concerns
• How will we be involved in decision-making?
• How will we communicate with policy makers and other important actors?
• Why should we trust the science community?
• How and when can we make ourselves heard?
• Who else are we talking with?
• How will we ensure our feedback is taken into account?
• What is the appropriate role of science fiction? It can have a role in raising awareness and promoting
dialogue. However, how can people distinguish the reality from the fiction?
4. ETHICS: risk management concerns
• What ethical, moral and religious implications are involved, and how?
• When a problem arises, when and how will it be corrected?
• Is our reaction to these issues ethically appropriate?
• Why do we favour option X? What are the other options?
• Why are we moving so slowly to correct the problem?
• What kind of oversight will we have?
• Will the government use this information to legislate against us?
• Could nano be used to promote a eugenics agenda?
• What will it do to us as persons to have constant monitoring of various biochemical parameters? Would
that be good for us? How do we know?
• How will this impact the health care system? Will it lead to misuse of resources because people will
worry about the data when they don’t need to?
• How will the impact of nano on developing countries be studied and monitored? Will the diseases of
developing countries get the same attention and research funding as those of the developed countries?
III – HOW SHOULD WE COMMUNICATE?
Clearly, the vehicles that can be employed to achieve communication objectives will depend
on the needs and expectations of the audiences targeted. There are no real rules for choosing
the right tools to achieve objectives, but it is useful to keep in mind relevant facts about each
stakeholder or group of public, in order to reach them effectively. Below, a number of
possible approaches are outlined. While they may not give the full picture, these approaches
are useful preliminary assessments rather than final analyses. If we use two or more of these
approaches, and the information seems consistent, our "snapshot" is more likely to be an
accurate reflection of the full picture.









Hands-on approach
Implement a cooperation model school-science museum-labs;
Develop imaginative ways to allow citizens to experience nano
Set up databases for copyright-free access to experiments on nano
Promote openness of research centres to the public as a mission, by communicators
Foster communication from applications, then benefits and risks
Need to use emotions: how/why do we fall in love with nano: different rationalities
e.g. theatre, arts, game, role-play
Involve passionate people
Below is a list of methods and media that can be used to communicate concepts on
nanotechnology to appropriate target audiences.
16
Written or audio-visual Materials
• Leaflets
• Letters
• Postcards
• Newsletters
• Periodic updates (less formal and less work than newsletters.)
• Articles or announcements in other organisations' newsletters
• Displays
• Fact sheets
• Curriculum materials
• Comics, art, theatre, dance
• Handouts
• Question-and-answer sheets (useful when they directly address concerns)
• Posters
• Videos
• Slide shows
• Audio tapes
• Music – in the lyrics
Electronic Communication
• Email
• Bulletin boards
• World Wide Web
• Faxes
Person-to-Person Approaches
• Presentations - at our own events or meetings or at others' events or meetings
• Informal meetings (More useful to create dialogue than public hearings or large meetings)
• Open-door days, i.e. labs open to the public with organised events, lectures, discussions, etc.
• Workshops
• Advisory committees
• Networking
• Information telephone lines
• Events
• Celebrations
• Field days/tours
• Breakfast/lunch/dinner function
• Conferences
• Training courses (in particular for doctors and other healthcare professionals)
Mass media approaches
• Local/suburban media
• Media releases
• Letters to the editor
• Talk shows
• Call-in shows (These have potential to create a dialogue.)
• Advertisements
• Feature articles
• Public discussions and debates after showing relevant movies
• Book clubs
• Discussions at church groups
Tactics for eliciting input
• Informal meetings
17
• Market analysis
• Questionnaires
• Advisory groups
• Brainstorming
• Interactive workshops
• Consensus groups
• Opinion polls and surveys
• Evaluations of N&N process/progress
• Dividing large meetings into small groups
• Interactive field days
• Focus groups
Commercialisation-like tactics
• Promotion planning
• Selection of and liaison with stakeholders
• Intellectual property management
• Contract negotiation
• Art and theatre
II. FOSTERING ENGAGEMENT THROUGH DIALOGUE
feedback & dialogue with civil society to receive inputs and create consensus
Another important aspect of communication is engaging people on nanotechnology, making
them aware of the scientific and technological developments, as well as the impact on society
and daily life, in the form of benefits and/or risks. Dialogue is proposed as one of the possible
means of achieving this goal. Once again this is linked to all the other factors but will be
treated separately to maximise attention focus. There are several issues to be considered if we
aim to foster public engagement with nanotechnology through dialogue. To start with, unless
we have a great deal of familiarity with our key audiences, we can create misunderstandings
by assuming we know their concerns - or by assuming their concerns are the same as ours.
Identifying our audiences' concerns before we communicate with them will greatly reduce
frustration and increase communication effectiveness.
Identifying perceptions, concerns and communication needs is the most time consuming
component of communication planning, but it is also crucial in terms of developing and
implementing successful communication.
Perceptions
• What do audiences already know about N&N?
• Which are the perceived risks/benefits of N&N?
Concerns
• Do audiences have feedback and suggestions for scientists or policy makers?
• What sort of response, should be encouraged from the stakeholders receiving the public's
comments/suggestions?
• Do audiences have any concerns about N&N activities?
• What objections do audiences have about the way N&N operates?
• What else can audiences tell us that will help us to be more responsive to their concerns?
Communication needs
• What type of interaction would audiences like to have with N&N?
• How do audiences feel about their interaction with N&N so far?
• What questions do audiences want answered?
18
• What kind of information do audiences want have?
• How do audiences like to receive information on N&N?
I – WHO SHOULD WE ENGAGE?
The objective is clearly to make science and technology governance more democratic by
enhancing the understanding and the choice-making possibilities of all groups within the
public. However, it may be useful in specific moments to target special groups, for example:





STAKEHOLDERS {users and producers of nano}
KEY-AUDIENCES
ATTITUDINAL GROUPS
OPINION LEADERS (e.g. celebrities, rural community leaders)
OTHERS
II – WHAT ARE THE RELEVANT TOPICS FOR ENGAGEMENT?
The main objective of dialogue and engagement is to provide European citizens with the
possibility of bringing up and proposing topics they consider as priorities for their lives,
therefore one central issue in participatory mechanisms is setting up frameworks to facilitate
this process. Thus, a draft classification can be built into a scale according to whether or not a
topic is or could become controversial for dialogue:
1. Issues that are currently causing public controversy;
2. Issues with a clear potential to cause public controversy;
3. Issues which are not controversial, perhaps because the impact on society is not yet
established.
At the top of the scale we can clearly recognise “hot topics”, possibly covered in the news
sections of the papers and on the TV or radio news. Addressing these topics is crucial and it
provides a way for people to express themselves and their hopes and concerns.
The next broad category includes issues where there is the potential for significant
controversy. It is important to have dialogue activities addressing these issues, as they will
help to build mutual understanding, ultimately lessening any controversy when it does erupt.
It will be important to identify mechanisms that ensure reliable information is fed into
appropriate policy in order to help appropriate managers, funders or public departments better
understand the potential response to emerging issues.
The third category is one where horizon scanning and scenario development will be important
parts of underpinning conversations. It's hard to engage public audiences in issues like this,
since they might not seem real yet.
Where an individual topic sits within this scale will naturally vary over time and can move
quickly. At the time of writing, vaccines sit firmly in the first category, yet two months ago
would have been in the second. N&N probably sits in the third category, yet a breakthrough
in miniaturised robotics could shift it into any of the other categories depending on the nature
of the breakthrough.
III – HOW SHOULD WE ENGAGE AUDIENCES?
19
First, it's important to establish goals/aims of dialogue and engagement, considering the
‘participation paradox' (people state they want to participate but don’t actively engage),
stressing dialogue as the basis of engagement. Then, different mechanisms can be used to
create the appropriate dialogue and engage publics on controversial or non-controversial
issues. Some examples of possible ways to do this are listed below:
 Using informal gatherings such as fairs and festivals to opening science to everyday
life, opening also leisure time/space, on a regular basis
 Web-space for collecting feedback
 Providing access to reliable information to laypeople, by considering perceptions and
cultural specificities (e.g. science centres)
 Using different methods to generate dialogue, e.g. comedy, art, theatre,
commercialisation-like techniques and guarantee the engagement of policy makers.
II.2 Framework of the second workshop
I - Objectives
The second workshop on outreach communication in nanotechnology was launched by the
European Commission in order to obtain useful insights into appropriate action to be taken in
communicating about nanotechnology, to foster engagement in society, offer appropriate
information and ensure the avoidance of avalanching scenarios.
II - Participants
The workshop involved around twenty five experts in different areas of communication, all of
which had previous experience of working with nanotechnology. Among the experts invited
there were philosophers and sociologists of science, institutional communication officers,
journalists, science centre employees and, following recommendations identified by
workshop I and the related open consultation, artists working with different media.
III - Methodology
Participants were encouraged to exchange with information about former projects and
collaborate in proposing new ideas to proceed with communication actions and advise the
European Commission concerning appropriate funding measures.
The meeting was a two-day event taking place on Wednesday, October 24th and Thursday,
October 25th, in Brussels at the European Commission premises. It was structured as a group
effort using a practical, interactive approach. Participants were encouraged to interact
creatively, brainstorming to propose new ideas and then discussing among themselves to
reach consensus about the priority of the actions identified. The group's work was based on
some documentation and background materials produced by the European Commission and
circulated to participants before the workshop.
In the following section, the methodology used during the workshop is summarised on a daily
basis.
20
Day 1 – Brainstorming phase
On the first day of the workshop, the participants were divided into three groups according to
their individual line of expertise and invited to reflect on and discuss the issues presented
above.



Group I, reflecting on the theme "TO WHOM should we communicate about
nanotechnology?" was composed of academics, philosophers, social scientists and
science communication professionals.
Group II answered the question "WHAT should we communicate about
nanotechnology?" Working on identifying appropriate messages were mainly
professionals in the field of science communication, such as press officers and science
centre employees.
Group III analysed the theme "HOW should we communicate nanotechnology?" The
group, composed of artists from several disciplines as well as designers, provided a
creative approach to communication, identifying appropriate tools to reach out to
audiences previously unconcerned with nanotechnology.
An innovative methodology: the "inverted traffic light"
The discussion method used involved at first a brainstorming exercise where participants were
encouraged to develop as many different ideas as possible on their group's topic, creating a
long list of ideas and possibilities. The second group discussion looked at the generated ideas
more closely, clustering together similar concepts, in order to obtain a shorter list of welldefined proposals. In the third phase of discussion, participants were requested to agree on a
ranking of their group's ideas, according to a predefined format that ensured similar results in
all groups. The results were presented in the form of an inverted traffic light which was
structured as follows:
GREEN – Ideas in the green zone were defined to be "urgent, well-defined and necessary". In
this area participants placed the three to five ideas that they would like to see carried out in
the near future.
YELLOW - Ideas in the yellow zone were thought to be "useful rather than necessary,
important but not crucial". In the middle field of the traffic light participants placed ideas that
they thought should be carried out in the medium term or ideas that were not yet thoroughly
defined and required further discussion.
RED – Ideas in the red zone were deemed important by some, but not all the group members.
Where no consensus could be found, or where group members felt a need for future debate,
the red zone of the traffic light was employed.
At the end of the first day, groups presented their findings to the participants gathered in
plenary, with the help of visual aids such as posters and coloured markers. The results were
then discussed and agreed on after some minor rearrangements.
Day 2 – In-depth discussion phase
The second day began with a presentation in plenary of the objectives and focus of discussion.
The original structure of the workshop would have required the results of the three groups to
be merged into a big matrix connecting the target publics to the messages and communication
tools most appropriate to them. The second group was to identify ways of segmenting
21
audiences with a view to gaining deeper knowledge about the public's needs and expectations
on nanotechnology. The third group was to work on participatory mechanisms to engage the
public in dialogue.
Results from the discussion groups held on the first day were reviewed in plenary and it soon
became apparent that they were not converging towards similar objectives. Whereas the 'what'
and 'how' groups had devised activities suitable for broad audiences, the 'to whom' group had
chosen to focus on specific target groups. Moreover, all groups agreed on the importance of
including public dialogue and debate, as well as the collection of feedback from audience
groups, to ensure setting up a two-way communication with the public or groups of publics.
Therefore, possible main goals of the communications strategy were revised and agreed upon
according to the understanding and suggestions of the participating experts. Then, participants
self-assembled into small groups and each one dealt with the target audiences defined by the
'to whom' group of the first day and agreed on by the extended group during the plenary. The
objective was to propose possible messages and tools to communicate to and with these
groups effectively, in a tailored way. As a part of the discussion, audiences were segmented
into specific groups where appropriate. The following section provides a detailed account of
the discussion and its resulting proposals.
As stated earlier, the topic of debate and mechanisms designed to collect feedback and create
engagement was taken up by all groups. Appropriate communication and dialogue cannot be
separated, participants explained, because the public or the groups of different users cannot be
treated as empty boxes that have to be filled with information. On the one hand, clear
objectives were needed on what the main goals of the communications strategy should be for
each target group; on the other hand, the needs and expectations of different groups must be
taken into account accordingly to ensure that efforts to communicate are effective. In other
words, communication must always look at both sets of objectives. Furthermore, it was
emphasized that communication should always be two-sided. Therefore, in implementing the
communication strategy, those methods should be favoured which allow feedback between
the participants of the dialogue on nanotechnologies.
22
PART III:
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Learning from the debates on GMOs and Biotechnologies in general, the workshop
participants agreed, that the main outcome of a communications strategy on nanotechnologies
should be to raise general awareness of Nanotechnologies among the public (i.e. the general
public should know and understand the word and have an idea of the technologies connected
with it) and to significantly raise the level of knowledge among important multipliers (i.e.
communicators of risks and benefits of nanotechnologies to the general public).
Raising the level of awareness on nanotechnologies among the general public serves three
main goals (all of them were mentioned by workshop participants):
-
-
-
Dialogue: Knowing about nanotechnologies may create an interest in the opportunities
and risks connected with nanotechnologies and may enable citizens to be actively
involved in a dialogue on shaping the future of these technologies.
Caution/Opportunities: The more informed and interested the public is in
nanotechnologies the easier will it be to keep up the awareness of the opportunities
behind nanotechnologies, even in the case of an upcoming crisis or scandal.
Recruiting: Raising awareness on nanotechnologies may increase the number of
youngsters wanting to become scientists.
Raising the level of knowledge and awareness on nanotechnologies among important
multipliers serves two main goals:
-
-
Caution: As the GMO-debate has shown, even important multipliers are often not
properly informed on new technologies. One reason seems to be that in the case of a
crisis it is the best known stakeholders, and not necessarily the most informed, who
receive attention, although they often have little to no time to get informed (especially
during a crisis). As their impact on the general publics' view and feelings about
nanotechnologies is highly significant, one goal of the communications is to raise the
level of knowledge on Nanotechnology among these multipliers/officials.
Effectiveness: As only a limited amount of money is available to set the
communications strategy into action, reaching multipliers to start a continued dialogue
with the public seems most effective. Since the public is keen on expressing its views
on the subject of nanotechnologies, the overall exercise on appropriate communication
should allow to foster mechanisms for an active dialogue with society.
What should be communicated to whom and how are key questions to frame appropriate
communication. The following section includes materials elaborated discussion groups during
the second workshop, both in an extended format and in a synthetic synopsis in the form of a
table. Finally, the last chapter includes the conclusions that can be drawn from this exercise.
23
III.1 Results
The discussion results focused on two different aspects of science communication about
nanotechnology. The first related to multipliers, meaning target publics that have an
important role in communicating with a larger public, such as journalists or teachers. As they
have the potential to reach so many more individuals, they should be the primary groups to
reach, without however excluding the need to address the broad public with appropriate
actions. Secondly, the group recognised that some groups are best reached during their
"professional" (or school) time, while others would be best reached during their leisure
time.
The discussion pinpointed that it is really hard to effectively target all the publics mentioned
in the document, especially on a continental scale. The information deluge on any public is so
huge now that it takes a big effort just to break the attention barrier. Any effort by the
European Commission on all these targets risks being spread far too thin to have a significant
impact.
As a consequence, it is not by chance that communication projects start by choosing a specific
target audience: thus, the more specific the target, the better, and all subsequent decisions
depend on that.
Therefore the group that was asked to answer the “to whom” question emphasized the
importance of multipliers and influencers – scientists, journalists, policy-makers, and if
possible also teachers. Clearly, if the multipliers and influencers are not ready to play their
role, communication projects aimed at the general public will lack a key resource. The
subgroup working on scientists also emphasised that scientists are particularly important for
two reasons. (i) The first reason is that nanotechnology is an extremely technical and diverse
field. Reliable and updated information can only come from scientists, in the first place. They
are the first link in the communication chain (they publish in the professional and the lay
press, they give interviews, they are asked expert opinions, they are invited to debates), and
therefore their role is a critical one. If they won’t communicate, or will not be able to do so,
most other communication projects are doomed to fail, even if just for lack of information (or
correct information). (ii) The second reason is that according to Eurobarometer and other
surveys, scientists are the professionals most trusted by the public when it comes to
explaining the impact of technology on our life3.
All groups agreed on the need to guarantee high quality as an essential point. In order to
deliver a message you need to create attention and awareness to begin with. Taking into
account that especially the youngster target groups are overwhelmed and “spoiled” with an
abundance of information, advertisements, immersive games and virtual worlds every day, all
communication actions should be chosen very carefully (e.g. the attempt to compete with a
multimillion dollar professional immersive pc or console 3D game for communicating nano is
3
Nanotechnology: views of the general public (2004): BMRB international, in www.nanotech.org.uk; "Public
perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust". Cobb, M.D.; Macoubrie, J, J.Nanoparticle Res.,
2004, 6, 395-405;
Gaskell, G.; Allum, N.; Stares, S. (2003): Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0;
Methodology Institute, London School of Economics, London U.K.
"Public attitudes towards nanotechnology" (2002): Bainbridge, W.S., J.Nanoparticle Res. 2002, 4 , 561-570;
Swiss publifocus on nanotechnologies, (2006), project TA-Swiss, in TA-SWISS, the Centre for Technology
Assessment
24
likely to fail). The focus should be set on an outstanding quality in design, implementation
and content of each project/action rather than creating a large quantity of output with an
average appearance that does not stick out of the mass.
I - "PROFESSIONAL TIME" activities for specific target groups
The group decided to concentrate on multipliers as important target groups; thus, it was
agreed that the important divisions within the public should be linked to their age, activity and
role in society rather than to their attitude towards nanotechnology. Major outcomes of the
workshop were:
• the specificity of objectives, means and messages to each target audience
• the needed balance between large-scale events and long-term action, the latter
being often more appropriate when dealing with multipliers' audiences
General recommendations for projects:
- Ask the question: are the key messages communicated effectively to the target audience
identified as a priority? Are the objectives clearly defined and met in the project lifetime?
- special attention should be paid to differences in the target audience, which can result in
important variations to the way messages are received
- additional specific actions should be targeted at the multipliers with special outreach for
each group e.g. tools for teachers/parents (e.g. in case of youngsters)
Target groups and activities:
1. Youngsters
Generally speaking, youngsters can be considered a final target audience, whose multipliers
are teachers and/or parents, possibly to a lesser degree. Still, some authors have expressed the
view that youngsters can also act as multipliers or influencers with respect to other young
people belonging to their own environment (in both school and leisure spaces).
Considering youngsters is difficult, as it is a fairly broad target: therefore a segmentation of
the group into subgroups was proposed based on age and needs. The first question is: who are
youngsters? The most coherent approach is to divide them into groups according to ages and
phases of life, with differentiated objectives and tailored messages for each one. There should
be differentiated actions specifically designed for boys and girls, as girls tend to lose interest
in science and technology subjects at a certain point in time. The main goal is to stimulate
youngsters' curiosity in order to create the desire to enter scientific professions. Two other
general objectives dominate: one is raising the level of knowledge about nano and fostering
an understanding of science and the way it works, the other is promoting awareness of
controversial issues (such as ethical, legal, and social implications of nano) in order to create
responsible citizens. Some effort should also be made to insert nano into school curricula at
various levels, in order to ensure a basic level of knowledge on the subject.
Activities suitable to all groups of youngsters:


art festivals, theatre, movies, games
exhibitions and activities in science museums
25
Children aged 5-13
Children of that age are typically not yet interested in nano, but are generally interested in
knowing more about the world; in order to reach them more easily, multiplier groups (such as
teachers and parents) can be targeted through special training programs and activities. The
objective of communication activities for this age should be to stimulate the children's
curiosity about science and nano and influence teachers and parents so that they will continue
activities at home or expose the child to further information. The message for this group
should be simple, such as "Nano is cool/fun/interesting". The following list collects some
exemplary suggestions concerning the measures to be taken and channels to be used in
reaching out to young children and to gather feedback






exhibitions in cultural centres, science museums
events in schools
games (including computer games), cartoons
nano fairs, theatre, festivals
internet, TV-radio-media
developing a friendly guide, mascot or sympathy figure to show children the nano
world
Youngsters aged 14-18
This group is getting ready to choose university. Therefore, they require information about the
possibilities nano offers in the academic and professional world, as well as basic information
on nanotechnology and why they should be interested in it. Objectives of communication
activities should also be to stimulate interest in scientific subjects and approaches as well as to
foster a critical attitude and stimulate dialogue to make them into responsible citizens. The
general messages could be summarised as follows: 'Nano is trendy-fun-intellectually
stimulating', 'nano is exciting and an attractive field for further education and a future job
opportunity', as well as 'you can make a difference'. Multipliers to be targeted to reach this
group are both teachers and celebrities (such as singers and famous scientists).
Studies show that in youngsters of this age group, gender differences start appearing in their
attitude towards science and technology. Therefore, measures should be taken to minimise
such a budding imbalance. To this end and to maximise impact, feedback should be collected
during activities. Some of the measures/channels to engage youngsters and collect feedback:









internet platforms, podcasts/trendy media
organised debates
celebrity testimonials on science issues
bringing famous scientist to schools
festivals
contests for video and creative art productions
theatre productions and art contests
edutainment interactive applications – hands-on activities and open labs
visit to labs/experimenting/stage experiments/dialogue
Youngsters aged 19-22
Youngsters in this age group are getting ready to choose careers and seek reliable information
about their (career) options. Multipliers include celebrities, among which famous scientists;
politicians; journalists/media; industry (aiming at attracting young people as future
professionals); teachers, scientists, professors; NGO's targeting "green" sensitised youngsters.
26
Gender differences continue to be an issue and require special attention. The messages that
should be communicated are e.g. "nano is already part of our life", "it can represent an
important part of the future", "nano is interesting and it represents a challenging professional
opportunity" and "you can make a difference" (to encourage active participation and
engagement with science). The general objectives of the actions are stimulating interest in
science careers and increasing knowledge of opportunities in science, to create responsible
citizens by enhancing critical thinking. The measures/channels best suited to engage
youngsters and collect feedback from them are:







open labs, out campus events, real lab guided tours contact with scientists
internet
professional information- orientation fairs and case studies, presence of EC stands
informal activities to familiarise students with concepts of nano
conferences/shows
internships
Debates
2. Scientists
Scientists can have two different roles in science communication. They can be taken as a
target audience in its own right, since science has a high degree of specialisation that means
that scientists are not experts in all fields of knowledge. Therefore, training activities can be
envisaged to give access to useful information in realms where they are not specialists. For
example, communication training may be beneficial for both natural and social scientists, as
well as training on the awareness and basic knowledge of societal consequences of research
and connected products.
Possible activities to meet these goals for "scientist as targets" are:



seminars and courses
summer schools
meetings where natural scientists meet social scientists and professional
communicators
Possible actions to meet these goals for "scientists as communicators" are (some of the
following actions are repeated although they have been already mentioned above, to
emphasise that direct involvement of scientists is necessary to ensure appropriate and
effective communication):





presence and activities within festivals and other events
presentations for senior scientists ( it's particularly important to involve senior
scientists in these activities, since on one hand they are most likely to be interviewed
and asked questions about nano news, on the other hand they are the ones who must
decide research lines and young scientists' use of time)
real hands-on communication experiences (organised through research institutions
with the help of communication professionals)
internet platforms where scientists can communicate online directly with laypeople, in
particular with youngsters
open labs or events where young scientists can meet high school students (orientation
events and university courses about science);
27




collaborations with communication professionals (journalists, press officers, science
centre professionals);
collaborations with artists and designers;
science café programs, or cocktail, dinner events – informal with the objective of
providing a meeting ground with the public – also an important means of collecting
feedback from the public and of creating dialogue events;
closed doors meetings with NGOs and other professionals, for example from industry
– these activities can be very important because their objective is to build trust, and
should be carried out in non-crisis times.
Such actions will be best organised through their research institutions, or in collaboration with
them.
3. Journalists
Journalists are a diverse group of professionals with different needs and specifications,
although they should perform as "independently" as possible. The media they work with is
quite varied, ranging from newspapers to television to the internet. A set of values, messages
and activities have been identified accordingly.
Key values and objectives of communication strategy aimed at journalists as multipliers:
Credibility of the information provided
Relationship building
Key messages:
Nano is happening
It has implications on a societal level
Your audiences need to know more and need to have their say
As a category, journalists tend to be quite busy and hard to reach, therefore like all
communication activities dedicated to a specific target audience, actions directed towards
them must be based on their true needs in order to be considered useful and appropriate. The
time pressures and deadlines that journalists typically work under must be recognised and
taken into account. A need that is routinely expressed by journalists is images - possible ways
of providing appropriate and tailor-made images to serve various needs could be put into
place, for example a database. Furthermore, reliable information on nano is required in an
appropriate format; both from the point of view of basic/scientific knowledge and on the
context and social implications it has or could have in the future. Possible messages in
communicating with journalists could be that nanotechnology is already present in the
market-place, therefore it has possible positive and negative implications from a societal,
ethical and legal point of view (for example through its applications in water purification,
medicines, food, cosmetics). One point that needs to be stressed to the journalists is that the
public (journalists' audience) needs both to know more about nanotechnology in order to
increase their awareness of the associated opportunities and risks.
Press officers from public research institutions seem well placed to organise and manage the
information exchange between journalists and different groups of scientists, whereas care
should be taken in dealing with the press offices of private companies, which could have
special interests.
Some mechanisms of appropriate communication with journalists include initiatives aimed at
building relationships between journalists and those with specialised expertises and views,
such as ethicists, social scientists, NGOs etc. The aim would be to involve journalists who
reach a large spectrum of target audiences.
28
Possible relationship building mechanisms could include:
 Cross-over work shadowing-/work placement opportunities
 A neutral “resource centre” that provides a focus for pro-active briefing - highlights,
images movies, clips - offers tools for relationship building and generates scenarios as
a trigger for discussion. It could be a science centre or museum, since, according to
previous surveys, they are generally viewed as neutral by the public. Activities could
be organised in collaboration with press officers, since science centres and museums
do work with journalists on a fairly regular basis.
 The media becoming a sponsor of an event where they are involved might bias the
credibility of the event itself: local organisers could possibly judge upon this point.
 Social and informal activities involving for example journalists and scientists.
 Person-to-person contacts between journalists and scientists is a good practice that
needs to be expanded as a way of providing journalists with reference people in the
domain of nano, to call up for information or interviews in the event of nano news.
4. NGOs
In communication activities directed to NGOs, the main objective is to involve them directly
in building links and information together. NGOs can help build a mechanism to share
information in an ongoing way, rather than just for crisis management. Appropriate activities
include:
 Creation of platforms, forums and debates linking scientists to NGOs, built with their
direct involvement, in particular on the subjects of research into risk and legislation /
regulation.
 green quality markers for laboratories that reach pre-defined standards of safety in
handling nano-products. These labels should be developed by appropriate entities and
communicated to proper NGOs whose communication target is to watch over the
credibility of this information.
5. Business / industry
There are two major categories of businesses or industries concerned with nanotechnology,
each has its own needs and motivations:
 SMEs and start-up companies in nano-related industries and corporations are
motivated by the search for a market in nano – they have a strong motivation and the
means to seek out information on opportunities and risks associated with the nanobusiness.
 Nano-using and nano-producing companies and SMEs, on the other hand, are working
with staff that manipulate nano materials and components, producing goods that have
to do with nano and will be bought by customers on the market – their motivation is to
make money in this field but they may not be able to devote as many resources to the
communication activities as the previous group. There are two different considerations
in this case: what the producers dealing with nano need to know and what they should
be telling consumers, on one hand, and concerns for safety and security of staff
working with nanoproducts – what do the workers, associations and such need to
know? Trade unions and employers' organisations are important multipliers when
dealing with this kind of target.
SMEs and start-ups are more likely to require support in communication activities, as well as
dealing with safety and security issues and regulation – this should not be left to their own
resources and initiative. The insurance sector and NGOs pressure companies for
29
sustainability, while the main objective for this group is to make "nano" a business success.
Several actions should be taken to provide reliable information to answer the needs of
business, for instance:




Ratio of benefits/risks and facts/fiction
long term perspective
regulation
financial expectation
Industry has to know the needs of customers in order to develop products that are relevant to
customers' needs and values, which in nanotechnology are:


Know the product risks and what risks are studied, known or unknown; this
information should be easy to understand by costumers – internet and product
labelling with a special logo indicating the presence of nanotechnology treated
products, mouth to mouth marketing and product demonstration
Understand the impacts (both positive and potentially negative) of nanotechnology in
their daily life.
6. Policy-makers
For this target group, the main objective is to focus on policy-makers' needs at all levels
(European, national, local, etc). Several actions should be carried out to meet the needs of
decision-makers and to build a mechanism to ensure the needs are met in an ongoing way. It
seems important to build on-going channels of communication to inform and advise decisionmakers, rather than have large once-only events. The following topics have been identified as
potentially relevant for policy-makers.





Risk and benefits
Broad perspectives including economics
Where and what regulation is being made on EU level for local policy-makers.
International comparisons.
What people / citizens think
Implementation mechanisms







Platforms of information and exchanges on an ongoing basis. Including information
about initiatives taken by other policy-makers in EU countries.
Build channels of communication as well as tools
Interactive – allow scientists to talk to policy-makers & vice versa.
Language issues and cultural differences have to be taken into account especially
when dealing with local policy-makers, creating channels on various levels so that
information doesn't come across as directives from Brussels
Briefing on future scenarios before a crisis comes
Direct actions for policy-makers
Theatre/plays in City councils (professional settings of the targeted audience) on
nanoscience
30
II - "LEISURE TIME" Direct outreach activities for the general public
The group identified appropriate actions directed to the general public with the objective of
stimulating curiosity, raising awareness and collecting feedback from people. These should
best focus on leisure time activities. Unusual settings and cross-cultural approaches are
favoured in order to include groups that do not usually take part in activities concerning
science, without discounting the 'usual' approaches that are known to work. In particular, art is
an instrument well suited to the task of catching people's attention and stimulating their
curiosity. Public events on nano should be planned by groups comprising experts from
different fields such as scientists, artists, and other concerned groups of experts.
Objectives and key messages:

Reach people who are usually not involved and stimulate their curiosity, either by
providing stimuli through perception, dance and art. It's important to adopt a useroriented approach, answering the question "Why should I be interested?"

Provide basic information about nanotechnology, what it is and what implications it
has, keeping it simple and realistic without oversimplifying. Stress the fact that NT is
not magic, it’s a science that has methodologies and interdisciplinary work behind it, it
is not static knowledge acquired once and for all but an evolving technology where
new information is gained every day and new perspectives may emerge.
Nano is a cross-section technology covering a large range of sciences and branches/markets.
Thus the hopes and fears about nano vary depending on the branch and this must be taken into
account when communicating different aspects of the research and technology. E.g. nano in
food is more likely viewed as a risk/danger than nano in automotive industry

Ensure honest communication on known and unknown risks of nanotechnology and its
products, with an open approach to the ethical implications. What benefits are to be
expected? Facts and figures should be presented, e.g. by including a timeline for
applications to be expected; this kind of information could be derived from the
observatory on nanotechnologies. Communication projects must include social
implications of nanotechnology, along with questions such as environmental, health,
food problems. It is necessary to open a debate between different disciplines, people
and stakeholders.
Cross Themes to be implemented in science communication proposals:




Interdisciplinarity is important to communicate nano – scientists can interact with
communication professionals, artists and designers to maximise impact, ensure
quality of information and fine-tune approaches to different needs
Feedback from the public is essential and needs to be collected through appropriate
means in every activity
Debate should be stimulated and encouraged in the public – an exchange of views is
important and enriching both for the public and for the other groups involved, such
as scientists or policy makers
Interactivity with the public is crucial to ensure engagement. Appropriate measures
must be implemented to ensure that the public is involved in activities.
31
Activities proposed:
1. Games about nano
Games are a recognised way of providing informal learning environments for a wide variety
of publics, since they can be made with tailored messages and in ways suitable to reach
different audiences. The objective is to create fun and educational games within a realistic
scope/budget (e.g. the attempt to compete with a multimillion dollar professional immersive
pc or console 3D game for communicating nano is likely to fail).
The group proposed the following:








Video games
Table games
Strategy games
Role play games
Educational games and hands-on
Group or multi-player games
Card games
Construction games – nano lego like molecular models especially designed for
molecular machines for example or tactile games: building with boxers' gloves to give
an idea of limited movement, instrumentation for small object handling and such.
2. Virtual internet environment activities
Virtual guided tour to a nano-environment, to give the idea of scale and nano-dimensions. A
guide or mascot (sympathy figure) could be used to show the visitor around the virtual
environment. "Captain Nano" for example or a user-generated avatar or a combination of the
two. Edutainment tools can be made available This kind of media can also be designed to
work both for leisure and for professional / school time.
(Learning is also fun and schools use state-of-the-art tools/media for complementing the
class.)
"Second life" and other similar virtual environments where the nanoworld can come alive
could be used.


Interactive experiment with user generated output involving a virtual or real nano-lab
where the user can choose variables and perform experiments, verifying outputs and
experiencing scenarios
Internet platform or portal connecting different interest groups, different competencies
– for example scientists with artists, journalist or youngsters
3. Contemporary art Nano-Festival
A few day-long festivals joining contemporary art in various domains could be a possible
activity, where nanotechnology is interpreted using various arts and disciplines. This event
can and should be modulated to target different audiences. The event should also include
policy makers to maximise impact and media coverage.
Events should be planned by groups with mixed competencies, such as scientists, artists and
designers together. Interactivity with the public is a particularly important aspect of this kind
of event and input from the public should also be welcome.
32
Some possible components of the festival (which can be isolated to form a project in their
own right).
In order to reach out to people who usually go to art exhibitions or have some affinity to
contemporary dance or art performance, it is important to address the audience on a nano
festival in various ways including indirect/interpreted (artistic) and direct communication (e.g.
explanatory, edutainment).









Art exhibition with installations that introduce the public in the creative processes by
offering the possibility of interacting with the artworks, which change following
actions carried out by users. Introduction of nanophysics laws in the design of the
artwork itself, for example self-assembling application in art performance, installation,
theatre etc.
Conference or talk by a scientist connected to an artistic means of expression
interpreting the words and giving them perceptive depth, through visual aid or an
artistic performance where dancers interpret what the scientist says through
movement. Artists must be involved in collaboration with scientists in script writing.
Dance performance using movement, dramaturgy or choreography to give an idea of
the nano-dimensions (Feynman's famous quotations, interpreted by dancers to give an
idea of the void between atoms. A dancer with limited movement compared to a
puppet or a robot which can move any way it likes, either through the physical
presence of both or using electronic imagery gives the ideas of quantum levels of
energy)
Performance constructed according to the laws of quantum physics, for example with
a self-assembling structure, to give the public an intuitive perception of the physical
laws at nanoscale.
Workshops involving school groups or selected groups of specific publics
Short movies about nano – a competition could be launched to ensure public's
participation
Connections to the outside world, through internet, webcams, media connections
Writing and performance of nano-songs, acoustic voyage into the nano-world,
symphony about the nano-scale interactions, music written and performed using ideas
from physical behaviours at the nanoscale
Also take advantage of other mainstream nano-events. For example, if Hollywood
releases a movie involving nano, to have a public debate or discussion after showing
the movie. If there is a major news item on nano, have a science café discussion
around the event.
4. Travelling event



A travelling medium such as a train, caravan or a spaceship (caravan or truck
“disguised” as a futuristic vehicle) designed to reach every social destination, remote
places and third world countries
Different activities can be packed into the nano-train or wagon or spaceship: they
should be interactive, involve artistic media and interactive artistic applications, an
exhibition, a moving laboratory with experiments and demonstrations
Schools, villages and public spaces are some of the possible destinations, along with
stations and airports
33
III.2 Conclusions
This paper results from a second workshop on communication outreach in nanotechnology
held by the European Commission in Brussels, October 24-25th 2007. It shapes the conceptual
framework, methodological development and operative actions for future European funding
on appropriate communication engaging the European civil society into a dialogue on
nanotechnology. Experts in the field of science communication, media and art share success,
best practices and challenge stories, to give to different audiences a “voice” in the policy
making process. As a result, a set of recommended principles for Europe are outlined:
1. identifying and surveying target publics (especially information multipliers and
youngsters) to identify their values, concerns and expectations, communication models,
cultural specificities and rationalities; specific attention has been dedicated to scientists,
journalists, business and industry, NGOs and decision-makers.
2. developing new models and tools for communication, dialogue and engagement
addressing both professional time and leisure time (including cross-themes between science
and arts, "light” unconventional and emotion-based communication vehicles)
3. developing the role of choice-making process with appropriate new audiences, exchanging
visions, scientific cultures and mobility of practitioners in communication;
4. ensure access to reliable and high-quality information on ethical, social and legal
dimensions of nanotechnology and their potential implications for daily life; additional focus
is examined on ways to mitigate the nano-divide in communication and developing a free
database on best practices by funnelling all information towards an international body.
Two different aspects of science communication about nanotechnology have been identified.
The first relates to multipliers, meaning target publics that have an important role in
communicating with a larger public, such as journalists or teachers. As they have the potential
to reach so many more individuals, they should be the primary groups to reach, without
however excluding the need to address the broad public with appropriate actions. Secondly,
the group recognised that some audiences are best reached during their "professional" (or
school) time, while others would be best reached during their leisure time. As it is quite hard
to effectively target all the audiences mentioned in the document, especially on an European
scale, any effort by the European Commission on all these targets risks being spread far too
thin to have a significant impact. In this light, target audiences should be as specific as
possible. Additionally, all groups agreed on the need to guarantee high quality as an
essential point. In order to deliver a message it is important to create attention and
awareness to begin with.
In this light, the following synopsis summarising the most important actions to be developed
has been outlined to identify the main conclusion of the workshop.
34
SYNOPSIS OF WORKSHOP RESULTS
Professional or school time: activities directed towards specific groups of public (in particular "multipliers") for
ACTIONS
Audience
segmenting
Subgroups,
identities and
needs of target
group
Youngsters
1.Children 5-13
Are not interested in nano
Multipliers (can be reached with special
training programs)
- teachers, parents
2. Youngsters 14-18
Choosing university
Need information
Gender differences
Feedback should be collected
Multipliers:
- teachers, celebrities (singers and
famous scientists)
3. Youngsters 19-22
Choosing careers
Require information
Gender differences
Multipliers:
- Celebrities, famous scientists;
politicians; journalists/media; industry;
teachers/scientists/professors; NGOs
Scientists
1. Scientists as target
audiences for training on
basic scientific facts and/or
communication
2. Scientists as multipliers
and influencers in
communication to the public
AUDIENCES
Journalists
Key values
Neutrality
Relationship building
Pro-activity
Associated
Audiences
Business
NGOs
Scientists (can
provide briefings)
Ethicists
Industry/businesses
1. Industry have a
strong motivation
to seek out
information
because they know
there is a market for
nano
2. Nanoproduction
companies
manipulate nano
materials and
components might
require information
and help –
particularly SMes
NGOs
Different needs
according to the
organisation and
target of the
group
Decision makers
Different levels
of decision
makers, local,
national,
supranational
Cultural
differences and
language issues
must be taken into
account especially
when dealing with
local policymakers
35
ACTIONS
Objectives of the
activity Important
messages to be
communicated
(WHAT)
Youngsters
1.Children 5-13
- stimulate curiosity
- influence parents
Message:
Nano is cool-fun-interesting
2. Youngsters 14-18
- stimulate interest
- foster a critical attitude and stimulate
dialogue to make them into responsible
citizens
Message:
- Nano is trendy-fun-intellectually
challenging
- You can make a difference
3. Youngsters 19-22
- stimulate interest in science careers and
increase knowledge of opportunities in
science
- To create responsible citizens
Messages
- nano is the future
- nano is interesting and it represents a
challenging professional opportunity
- you can make a difference
Scientists

Stimulate the desire to
communicate with
laypeople

awareness and basic
knowledge of societal
consequences (for
natural scientists)

awareness and basic
knowledge of
scientific facts (for
social scientists)
AUDIENCES
Journalists

Nano is
happening now

Societal
implications of
Nano

Industry/businesses


Basic scientific
facts

Provide
accessible
information on
product risks
Show the
benefit of
nanotechnology
in customers'
daily life
Advise small
businesses on
nanotechnology
regulation and
on the financial
expectations
dealing with
nano
NGOs

Decision makers
Involve
NGOs' in
building
permanent
channels of
communica
tion.

Risk &
benefits

Broad
perspectives
including
economics

Involve
NGOs in
ongoing
informatio
n sharing

Regulation
on EU level
for local
policymakers.

Research
into risk,
legislation,
regulation

International
comparisons
on
regulation
and policy.

What people
/ citizens
think
36
ACTIONS
Proposed
mechanisms of
action (HOW)
Youngsters
Measures for all groups:
- art festival, theatre, movies, games
- exhibitions and activities in science
museums
1.Children 5-13
- exhibitions in cultural centres, science
museums
- events in schools
- games, cartoons
- nano fairs, theatre, festivals
- internet, TV-radio-media
- friendly guide, mascot or sympathy
figure to show children the nano world
2. Youngsters 14-18
- internet platforms, podcasts/trendy
media
- organised debates
- celebrity testimonials on science issues
- bringing famous scientist to schools
- festivals
- contests for video and creative art
productions
- theatre productions
- edutainment interactive applications –
hands-on experiments
- visit to labs/experimenting/stage
experiments/dialogue
3. Youngsters 19-22
- open labs, out-campus events, real lab
guided tours contact with scientists
- internet, movies
- internships, orientation fairs, EC stands
- theatre, games, conferences/shows
Scientists
 Communication
training for natural and
social scientists trough
seminars, courses,
summer schools

meetings between
natural + social
scientists +
communicators

presentations for
senior scientists –
interview coaching

real hands-on
experiences
AUDIENCES
Journalists
 Image and film
database on
nano

neutral resource
centre on nano

person-toperson
relationship
building
initiatives
between
journalists of
all specialties
and nano
scientists,
ethicists, social
scientists,
NGOs etc.

Cross-over
shadowing
/work
placement
opportunities

events/discussi
on events
developed in
partnership
with media
Industry/businesses
 Internet
resources


product
labelling with a
special logo
indicating the
presence of
nanotechnology
treated products
mouth to mouth
marketing and
product
demonstration
long term
perspective
NGOs
 Creation of
platforms
and forums
linking
scientists
to NGOs

MP pairing
scheme to
provide
permanent
connection
s between
groups

green
quality
markers for
laboratorie
s who
reach predefined
standards
of safety in
handling
nanoproducts
Decision makers
 Create
continuous
channels of
communicat
ion outside
crisis

Info on
different
levels for
local,
national or
specialised
decision
makers
37
Leisure time: activities addressing lay public
WHAT to
communicate
Key messages
Stimulate curiosity
using
perception, body
language, dance and
art
User-oriented
approach answering
the question: why is
this interesting for me?
Simple and realistic
information: what is
nano? A science, not
magic
Knowledge is growing
and evolving, nothing
is fixed
Cross themes
HOW to communicate - Activities
Interdisciplinarity
scientists interact with
artists and other groups to
maximise impact, ensure
quality of information and
fine-tune approach to
different needs
Games about nano targeted to different groups of public using appropriate media and carrying differentiated messages:
Debate stimulated and
encouraged – exchange of
views is important for
public and other groups
involved
Virtual internet environment activities












Ssocial and ethical
implications, stressing
openly and honestly
both benefits and risks
using facts and figures,
timelines, scenarios
Interactivity with the
public is crucial to ensure
engagement, by creating
artistic works together,
launch competitions, webbased methods such as
blogs, web cameras and
media-based platforms
Video games
Table games
Strategy games
Role play games
Educational games
Group or multi-player games
Card games
Construction games – nano lego like molecular models especially designed for molecular machines for example
or Tactile games: building with boxers' gloves to give an idea of limited movement, instrumentation for small
object handling and such
Virtual guided tour to a nano-environment, to give the idea of scale and nano-dimensions. A guide or mascot
(sympathy figure) can be used to show the visitor around the virtual environment. Captain Nano for example or
a user-generated avatar or a combination of the two. Edutainment tools can be made available
Second life virtual environment where the nanoworld comes alive
Interactive experiment with user generated output involving a virtual or real nano-lab where the user can
choose variables and perform experiments, verifying outputs and experiencing scenarios
Internet platform or portal connecting different interest groups, different competencies – for example scientists
with artists, journalist or youngsters
Contemporary art nano festival – a large event for everyone, lasting 3-4 days with nano interpreted though various
disciplies, particularly contemporary art. Some possible components (which can be isolated to form project in their own
right):

Art exhibition with installations that introduce the public in the creative processes by offering the possibility to
interact with the artworks, which change following actions carried out by users. Introduction of nanophysics
laws in the design of the artwork itself, for example self-assembling application in art performance, installation,
theatre etc.
38







Feedback from the public is
essential through
appropriate means in every
activity
Conference or talk by a scientist connected to an artistic means of expression interpreting the words and giving
them perceptive depth, through visual aid or an artistic performance where dancers interpret what the scientist
says through movement. Artists must be involved in collaboration with scientists in script writing.
Dance performance using movement, dramaturgy or choreography to give an idea of the nano-dimensions
(there is plenty of room at the bottom, for example, from Feynman's famous quotation, interpreted by dancers
to give an idea of the void between atoms. A dancer with limited movement compared to a puppet or a robot
which can move any way it likes, either through the physical presence of both or using electronic imagery gives
the ideas of quantum levels of energy)
Performance constructed according to the laws of quantum physics, for example with a self-assembling
structure, to give the public an intuitive perception of the physical laws at nanoscale.
Workshops involving school groups or selected groups of specific publics
Short movies about nano – a competition can be launched to ensure public's participation
Connections to the outside world, through internet, webcams, media connections
Writing and performance of nano-songs, acoustic voyage into the nano-world, symphony about the nano-scale
interactions, music written and performed using ideas from physical behaviours at the nanoscale
Travelling event



A travelling medium such as a train, caravan or spaceship designed to reach every social destination, remote
places and third world countries also
Different activities can be packed into the nano-train or wagon or spaceship: they should be interactive, involve
artistic media and interactive artistic applications, an exhibition, a moving laboratory with experiments and
demonstrations
Schools, villages and public spaces are some of the possible destinations, along with stations and airports
39
ANNEX
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WORKSHOP I
where are we now & where do we want to be?
I. Where are we now: assessment of current communication outreach and needs
MEDIA love nano, but are now more realistic on risks
PEOPLE show poor awareness and engagement
RESEARCH shows nano-promises in medicine, energy, materials, but also needs for more
research & regulation
STAKEHOLDERS show different attitudes from concern, to caution and trust
II. Where do we want to be
What are the expected outcomes?
To provide Europe with an integrated, safe and responsible nanotechnology
What role for the EC?
To promote appropriate communication, behavioural change, dialogue and engagement of
all civil society through target audiences
What should the EC do?
To identify who should do what, who should be involved and how, which means:
APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION
 Need for the EC to know the publics/audiences
 Provide accurate and accessible sources of information
 Develop appropriate and innovative communication tools
DIALOGUE & ENGAGEMENT with SOCIETY
 Identify goals, vehicles and tools for dialogue
 Implement appropriate participatory mechanisms
What audiences are to target?
 Attitudinal tough-to-reach audiences (e.g. tough-toreach, not for me, disoriented, not-responsive)
 strategic audiences: youngsters and NGOs
 Target-groups, patient associations, immigrants
 Non-EU countries stakeholders, e.g. communicators
What are we expecting from them?




Exchange information, input and warning
Change in attitude and behaviour
Raising awareness
Building engagement
40
WORKSHOP II
how do we get there?
PANEL I
IDENTIFYING & KNOWING AUDIENCES
 Funding surveys, studies and activities to get an insider's viewpoint on the audiences'
expectations, concerns, needs and beliefs (attitudinal tough-to-reach audiences,
immigrants, youngsters, NGOs, Non-EU stakeholders, communicators)
 Fund foresight and prospective studies on social and cultural impacts of
nanotechnologies and other new emerging technologies on different audiences
 Fund studies on habits of special audiences, e.g. youngsters, tough-to-reach, notresponsive, immigrants, non-EU communicators
Examples:
TOUGH-TO-REACH AUDIENCES (not-for-me, not responsive, disoriented)
 Create modulation of language and message;
 Raise new questions for producing responsive behaviours;
 Seek new models for public engagement
KEY-AUDIENCES, e.g. YOUNGSTERS:




Fund surveys on habits to get the message across;
Promote tetrahedral model of interaction school-museum-labs-policymakers;
Framing a reference professor of choice-making on benefits, risks and limits of nano
Considering nano into curricula
TARGET GROUPS, e.g. patient associations, immigrants




Launch surveys on needs and sensitiveness of patient associations
Study habits and cultural models of immigrants
Fund co-productions of exhibitions and activities;
Communicate nanotechnology through food, music and movies
KEY-STAKEHOLDERS, e.g. communicators, opinion-makers
 Funding for exchange and mobility of communicators
 Shape "light" participatory tools (e.g."Decide")
 Promote access to international activities (e.g. NISE-like efforts)
41
PANEL II
SUIT APPROPRIATE VEHICLES by AUDIENCE









Hands-on approach
Implement a cooperation model school-science museum-labs;
Develop imaginative ways to allow citizens to experience nano
Set up databases for copyright free access to experiments on nano
Promote openness of research centres to the public as a mission, by communicators
Foster communication from applications, then benefits and risks
Need to use emotions: how/why do we fall in love with nano: different rationalities
e.g. theatre, arts, game, role-play
Involve passionate people
IDENTIFY MESSAGES
Moderation principle: NOT what message does with the audience BUT what audience does
with message.
First, modulate transversal key-messages by audience, vehicle and source, i.e.:
 Nano is not magic
 Nano is new phase of tech exploiting nanoscale effects
 It deals with daily-life practical applications, benefits but also impacts the people
 It can and must be controlled and driven consciously
Second, focus on specific information needs by audience, vehicle and source, i.e.:
1. SAFETY: health, quality of life, lifestyle and environmental concerns
2. PRIVACY: data and information concerns
3. ENGAGEMENT & DECISION-MAKING: process concerns
4. ETHICS: risk management concerns
42
PANEL III
IDENTIFYING AUDIENCES TO ENGAGE





STAKEHOLDERS
KEY-AUDIENCES
ATTITUDINAL GROUPS
FOCUS GROUPS
OTHERS
IDENTIFYING WHAT IS RELEVANT TO ENGAGE ON
 Starting from problems and issues concerning society, focusing on to what extent
nanotechnology can improve or worsen them
 Identify applications and interactions of nanotechnology with biotechnology,
information and cognitive sciences, focussing on toxicity, man-machine interactions,
tissues engineering, neuroprosthetics, ambient intelligence, synthetic biology
 Set the limits of new emerging technologies and human nature
 Build debate on these issues:

Issues that are currently causing public controversy;

Issues with a clear potential to cause public controversy;

Issues where the impact on society is not yet established;

Issues that are interesting but not controversial.
 Build engagement on the issues:
• SAFETY: how will this affect my health, lifestyle and my environment?
• PRIVACY: what is this stuff? Can I trust information? Is my freedom affected?
• ETHICS: is it acceptable what are we going to do with that?
• BENEFITS: does all this stuff really improve my quality of life?
• ENGAGEMENT: how am I being treated?
• DECISION-MAKING: need for "international organism”?
IDENTIFYING HOW TO ENGAGE AUDIENCES
First, establish goals/aims of dialogue and engagement, considering the ‘participation
paradox' (people state they want to participate but don’t actively engage themselves),
stressing dialogue as the basis of engagement
 Opening research institutions to the public is beneficial both to scientists and public
 Using informal gatherings such as fairs and festivals to opening science to everyday
life, opening also leisure time/space, on a regular basis
 Providing access to reliable information for laypeople, by considering perceptions and
cultural specificities
 Using different methods to generate dialogue, e.g. comedy, art, theatre,
commercialisation-like technique and guarantee the engagement of policy makers
43
AUTHORS
Ms. Inge DE PRINS
Prof. Frank BURNET
Faculty of Applied Sciences,
University of West England
Bristol, United Kingdom
COST Office
Brussels, Belgium
Dr. Catherine Franche
Ecsite
Brussels, Belgium
Mr. Giovanni CARRADA
Private Consultant, Roma, Italy
Dr. Alexei GRINBAUM
CEA-Saclay SPEC/LARSIM
Paris, France
Mr. Laurent CHICOINEAU
La Casemate – CCSTI
Grenoble, France
Mr. Paul HIX
Mr. Sebastian CREMER
Deutsches Museum
München, Germany
Lekkerwerken, Design & Media Communication
Wiesbaden, Germany
Ms. Claudia KAISER
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and
Energy
Wuppertal, Germany
Mr. Enrico DE CAPOA
Le Nuvole Società Cooperativa
Naples, Italy
44
Mr. Tom KERSEVAN
Brida Art Collective
Sempas, Slovenia
Ms. Cynthia NEEDHAM
ICAN Productions
United States
Dr. Guglielmo Maglio
Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza
Naples, Italy
Dr. Dónal O’Mathúna
School of Nursing, Dublin City University
Dublin, Ireland
Dr. Rosina Malagrida i Escalas
Barcelona Science Park, Barcelona, Spain
Mr. Jurij PAVLICA
Brida Art Collective
Sempas, Slovenia
Ms. Sendi MANGO
Brida Art Collective
Sempas, Slovenia
Dr. Alison MOHR
Institute for Science & Society
University of Nottingham
Nottingham, United Kingdom
45
Dr. Helena Rodrigues
Fábrica Centro Ciência Viva de Aveiro
Aveiro, Portugal
Ms. Maddalena SCANDOLA
National Research Center, S3 (INFM-CNR) Modena, Italy
Mr. Stephan SCHALLER
Triple Innova,
Wuppertal, Germany
Ms. Melanie SMALLMANN
Think-Lab
London, United Kingdom
Ms. Carola SONDERMANN
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Parma, Italy
Dr. Piotr SWIATEK
COST Office, Brussels, Belgium
46