Small Talk: discussing
nanotechnologies
Melanie Smallman, Project Director
Collaboration aiming to:
•Facilitate dialogue on nanotechnologies
•Provide resources and support for event organisers
• Build a better understanding of the public and scientists‟
aspirations and concerns about nanotechnologies
• Share our results with policymakers and scientists
• Improve our understanding and use of good practice
•Evaluate the impact of a co-ordinated approach
We wanted to know:
a. Can we take social science models and adapt them for
bigger audience, less experienced organisers and smaller
££?
b. Was there any value (for policymakers) in doing this?
What we did
•Organised 20 events,
reaching more than 1200
participants
•Website of resources &
one-to-one support
•Evaluated every event
and gathered opinion
•Shared findings on
ongoing basis
I think that nanotechnologies may have the
following É
risks
benefits
moral implications
small
TALK
If you could say ANYTHING to the following people about
nanotechnologies, what would you say?
Scientist
small
TALK
Science minister
Please turn over to give us your feedback on today’s event
What we learned
• Practical lessons for science
communicators
• Lessons for policymakers about
attitudes to nanotechnology
• Issues for discussion about
dialogue
Attitudes to nanotechnology
Concerned about:
1. Regulation
• Who is in control and can we trust them?
• Will it be adequately regulated?
• Will there be enough funding to research the
risks?
• Multidisciplinary so might slip through
existing frameworks
2. Risks
• Will there be enough funding to
research risks?
• Environmental and health risks
• Developing faster than we can
keep pace of
• Risks that we can‟t forsee
3. Applications
• Military applications for
nanotechnologies
• Might increase gap between rich
and poor
• Fall into „wrong hands‟
Aspirations
Benefits could come in:
• Medicine
• Economy (creating jobs)
• Solutions to environmental problems
• Unexpected benefits
Moral implications
• No different to other technologies
• Morally neutral, but could be used for
bad purposes
• Impact of nanotechnologies on
economies and environments in
developing countries
Other issues
• Public needs more information
• Involving ordinary people in decisions is
important
• UK should be a world leader in nano
• Need proper funding to be a world
leader and understand risks
Role of Government
• Most important source of regulation
• Regulation should be restrictive until
safety proven
• Policy based on certain knowledge and
risks understood precisely
• Gov most important source of funding
• Direct relationship between government
and scientists
Participant message to
science minister
“You shouldn‟t decide anything
unless you know all the risks
involved and how you can find a
cure. You shouldn‟t decide
anything unless you have a cure”
Key messages for policymakers
• Attitudes to nano not significantly
different to attitudes to other
technologies - generally positive
• Significant parallels with attitudes to
GM at a similar stage
• People see danger in poor regulation
rather than specific hazards
• People over estimate influence of
government
What can you do?
1. Ensure possible risks off set by real benefits
to consumer not manufacturer
2. Ensure products do not exploit poorer people
(here or abroad)
3. Help the public to get informed
4. Help the public understand relationship
between science, government and industry
5. Discuss your plans for regulation with them,
so that they can understand and „own‟.
Issues for dialogue
• Outputs very similar to smaller dialgoues
(NEG)
• Are these outputs useful?
• What is most important - outputs or process?
What’s the balance?
• Are other processes giving you more insight?
• Do we need to keep doing this or are other
things going to be as important?
www.think-lab.co.uk
melaniesmallman@think-lab.co.uk