Strategy for Communication Outreach in Nanotechnology
advertisement
Working Paper Resulting from the Workshop on: Strategy for Communication Outreach in Nanotechnology (Brussels, 6th February 2007) Interested citizens and stakeholders are invited to express comments, opinions and suggestions by end June 2007 to matteo.bonazzi@ec.europa.eu. A final document will be then published. Editor: Dr. Matteo Bonazzi European Commission Unit "Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies" Date of publication: 20 April 2007 This publication can be downloaded from: http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 The views expressed in this document are entirely those of the Authors and do not engage or commit the European Commission in any way. More information on nanotechnology at the European Commission is available on http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology Special thanks to Dr. Jennifer Palumbo, Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza, Naples, Italy, for the help in editing this working paper. 2 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Authors Dr. Luigi Amodio – Director, Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza, Naples, Italy Dr. Andrea Bandelli - Private consultant, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Dr. M.J Buxo i Rey – Professor, Observatorio de Bioética y Derecho, Parc Cientific de Barcelona, Spain Dr. Ana Rita Claro Rodrigues -Ciência Viva- Agência Nacional para a Cultura Científica e Tecnológica, Lisboa, Portugal Dr. Valentina Corato - Partner manager Association MQC2 - CNR Naples, Italy Dr. Dulce Ferreira - Fábrica Centro Ciência Viva de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal Dr. Nynke Etk Fokma - Moebius Consultancy, Dordrecht, The Netherlands Dr. Catherine Franche - Executive Director, Ecsite, Brussels, Belgium Dr. Dominique Grand – CEA (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique) –Grenoble, France Dr. Ulrich Kernbach - Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany Dr. Guglielmo Maglio - Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza –Naples, Italy Dr. Rosina Malagrida i Escalas – Head of Science Communication and Diffusion, Parc Científic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Ms. Keelin Murphy - Education & Outreach - Centre for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN), Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Dr. Francesca Olivini - Educational Services and International Relations, Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia 'Leonardo da Vinci', Milano, Italy Dr. Jennifer Palumbo - Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza, Naples, Italy Dr. Helena Rodrigues - Fábrica Centro Ciência Viva de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal Dr. Roland Schaer - Director Sciences et Société, Cité des sciences et de l'industrie, Paris, France Dr. Elisabeth Schepers - Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany Dr. Monique Snippers - Program Assistant Frontiers Mesa+ Research Institute, Enschede, The Netherlands Dr. Stef Stayaert - Vlaams Instituut voor Wetenschappelijk en Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek, Flemish Parliament, Belgium Dr. Rinie van Est -Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag, The Netherlands Dr. Paulo Velho - Ciência Viva- Agência Nacional para a Cultura Científica e Tecnológica, Lisboa, Portugal Dr. Patricia Verheyden – Manager of exhibits Technopolis, the Flemish Science Center, Mechelen, Belgium Dr. Rolf Vermeij - University of Twente, The Netherlands Dr. Jennifer Wong - Dana Centre Programmes Developer, Dana Centre, London, UK Dr. Maria Xanthoudaki - Educational Services and International Relations, Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia 'Leonardo da Vinci', Milano, Italy 3 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Introduction It is my pleasure to present this publication which is the outcome of the workshop on Communication Outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6th February 2007 organized by the European Commission. This publication is open to comments, opinions, suggestions and -of course- criticisms by all interested citizens and stakeholders. Following the received inputs, a second workshop is planned for producing the final document, possibly by end 2007. Outreach, dialogue and inclusiveness are key elements of the European approach to nanotechnology. Information, communication and fostering societal debate have already become integral constituent of the portfolio of European initiatives. The European Commission (EC) has adopted in 2004 the Communication "Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology"1 and in 2005 the "Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009"2. In these political documents, an integrated, safe and responsible strategy was proposed to Europe (and world wide). The EC stated that "societal impacts need to be examined and taken into account. Dialogue with the public is essential to focus attention on issues of real concern rather than “science fiction” scenarios". Moreover, the EC observed at that time that "nanotechnology is poorly understood. Since it is complex and concerns a scale that is invisible, nanotechnology may be a difficult concept for the public to grasp. While the potential applications of nanotechnology can improve our quality of life, there may be some risk associated with it, as with any new technology - this should be openly acknowledged and investigated. At the same time the public’s perception of nanotechnology and its risks should be properly assessed and addressed". Since its first actions in nanotechnology in the early 2000s, the EC has highlighted appropriate communication and dialogue as an asset to put nanotechnology development in phase with people's expectations and concerns, at the same time also contributing to pave the way for a level playing field in the global market. In fact, "without a serious communication effort, nanotechnology innovations could face an unjust negative public reception. An effective two-way dialogue is indispensable, whereby the general publics’ views are taken into account and may be seen to influence decisions concerning R&D policy." Clearly, "the public trust and acceptance of nanotechnology will be crucial for its long-term development and allow us to profit from its potential benefits. It is evident that the scientific community will have to improve its communication skills." Additionally, the EC also aimed to address the mandate in the action plan by proposing to " a better dialogue between researchers, public and private decision-makers, other stakeholders, and the public is beneficial for understanding possible concerns and tackling them from the standpoints of science and of governance, and to promote informed judgement and engagement". In this light, the 6th and 7th Framework Programmes (FP6 and FP7) of the European Union for supporting and funding scientific research and technological development have played and play a pivotal role. Aiming at the implementation of the Lisbon agenda for growth and competitiveness, they address also the role of science in society, which has several peculiarities in the new field of nanotechnology. EC-funded nanotechnology research (and 1 2 COM(2004) 338 http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology/actionplan.htm COM (2005) 243 http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology/actionplan.htm 4 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 use) should be responsible and thus respond to the needs, expectation and concerns of the European stakeholders. The initiatives related to communication, outreach and dialogue with the so-called civil society include many projects funded within FP6 and will presumably be reinforced within the current FP7, which will last until 2013. This report summarizes the results of a workshop organized by the EC with the participation of international experts from the fields of communication, outreach and nanotechnology. The main program of the workshop consisted of an introductory lecture, group discussions dynamics based on an open space methodology and a final plenary session. A writing group prepared the initial draft of this report based on workshop discussions, and this final paper was reviewed by all workshop participants and some outside experts. The contents are based on the results of the group discussions. The structure of this report follows the main topics identified and discussed by the groups. This exercise aims at identifying which messages are appropriate, if any, and which vehicles, techniques and outcomes are to be set up to attain citizens who are not properly informed on nanotechnology, especially tough-to-reach audiences. Assessment of current communication and insight of desirable outcomes will be outlined, and appropriate participatory mechanisms promoting dialogue with the broad civil society can be explored, which are specific to nanotechnology. It was aimed at assessing current communication experiences and outlining insight of desirable outcomes. This allows identifying the most appropriate participatory mechanisms promoting a balanced dialogue with the broad civil society. As a result, recommendations emerge also for specific actions to be examined under FP7. This document has been uploaded on http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/ in order to broaden the discussion through an open forum. The results will be examined by the Authors in order to prepare a final publication, possibly thanks to a second workshop by end 2007. All citizens and stakeholders, in Europe and beyond, are welcome to express comments, opinions and suggestions to the present working paper writing to matteo.bonazzi@ec.europa.eu by end June 2007. It would be valuable that other countries and organizations at national or international level initiate similar initiatives, so to confront and benchmark our experiences, identify best practices and create a shared basis of information. Renzo Tomellini Head of Unit Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies renzo.tomellini@ec.europa.eu 5 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Working Paper Resulting from the Workshop on Strategy for Communication Outreach in Nanotechnology (Brussels, 6th February 2007) Interested citizens and stakeholders are invited to express comments, opinions and suggestions by end June 2007 to matteo.bonazzi@ec.europa.eu. A final document will be then published. 6 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Table of contents KEY-ISSUES FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY 9 PART 1 – SETTING THE SCENE 10 1.1 BACKGROUND 10 1.2 RATIONALE 11 1.3 GOAL 11 1.4 "APPROPRIATE" COMMUNICATION? 11 1.5 METHODOLOGY 13 How does success look like I. Where are we now? II. Where do we want to be? III. How do we get there? 13 13 15 16 PART 2: DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY 17 2.1 INTRODUCTION 17 2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EXERCISE 19 2.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 20 2.4 DISCUSSION RESULTS 21 2.5 CONCLUSIONS: STRATEGY FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY 28 2.6 STRATEGY FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY IN A NUTSHELL 31 ANNEXES 35 A.1 AUDIENCES 35 7 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 A.2 MESSAGES 37 A.3 PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS 39 A.4 PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS BY ISSUE 44 A.5 NANOTECHNOLOGY: FUTURE SCENARIOS? 45 A.6 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 48 A.7 OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY 1. What is Open Space Technology? 2. Setting up a workshop 3. Phases of the Workshop 49 49 50 50 AUTHORS 53 8 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 KEY-ISSUES FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY How does success look like? Operative recommendations for FP7… I. Where are we now: assessment of current communication outreach and related needs - What do media say? - What do people say? - What does industry say? - What do other stakeholders say? II. Where do we want to be: identify outcomes e.g. attitudinal change in target audiences - What do we want to do? Appropriate communication Dialogue with civil society - What audiences are to target? Believers Technophiles Prudent supporters Not for Me Disoriented Concerned - What are we expecting from them? Input and warning Change in attitude Awareness Engagement III. How do we get there: identify audience-oriented messages, sources and vehicles - What is relevant and appropriate for the EC and target audiences to know? • • • • • Appropriate communication Knowing audiences Nano is not magic Nano is new phase of tech exploiting nanoscale effects It deals with new markets but also impacts the people It can be controlled and driven consciously Dialogue with society SAFETY: how will this affect my health, lifestyle and my environment? PRIVACY: what is this stuff? Can I trust information? Is my freedom affected? ENGAGEMENT & DECISION-MAKING: how am I being treated? ETHICS: is it acceptable what are we going to do with that? BENEFIT: does all this stuff really improve my quality of life? - Which role for the EC? Who should do what and how? Who: EC launching activities via FP7 calls; Vehicles: written or audio-visual, electronic, media, commercialisation-like techniques, interactive mechanisms, art - What communication/participatory mechanisms are appropriate for dialogue? Theatre, Interactive meetings, polls, Consultative panels, Itinerant events (eg. nano-truck), Citizens’ juries, Consensus declaration, Multi-criteria mapping, Web forum/blogs 9 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 PART 1 – SETTING THE SCENE 1.1 BACKGROUND Generally speaking, “direct dialogue with the public on science should move from being an optional add-on to science-based policy making and to the activities of research organisations and learned institutions, and should become a normal and integral part of the process”( reworked from “Science & Society report, S&T House of Lords Committee, 2000 & 2002”) Communication and dialogue are the pre-requisites to generate debate between individuals and groups, thus creating a climate where people discuss sensitive scientific and technological issues in the way in which they discuss other issues of public and social policy. Such a dialogue is expected to contribute to EU decision-making, simultaneously stimulating both interest and awareness on the societal implications for research. Clearly, this is particularly true for nanotechnologies and nanosciences, and even more for "converging" technologies and disciplines, which means the synergetic area including nano-bio-info-cogno domains. This process should also enable researchers becoming more open to communicate with the public, promoting their deeper engagement in the production of easy-to-read articles, television and radio programmes, web chat sites, etc. helping science and research to becoming a normal facet of our life, rather than something different and difficult. Generally speaking, there is a need to re-address the approach for communicating science and technology, so far based on “public understanding of science”. Evidence has shown that this concept is no longer enough to engage today’s more sceptical and less deferential public on science and technology related issues. The main reason roots on the condescending, even demeaning, tone which, so far from engaging the public in debate, tends to turn people off. Indeed, it will be better to address a "scientific understanding of the public". Clearly, a new mood of communication is required, based on dialogue: instead of the one way, top down process of seeking to increase peoples’ understanding of science, a two way iterating dialogue must be addressed, where those seeking to communicate the wonders of their science, also listen to the perceptions, concerns and expectations of society. Dialogue requires ears as well as voices, and number of ears should double the number of mouths, as most ancient spiritual traditions suggest. Overall, science and technology systems are deeply embedded in today’s life, and nanotechnology and nanosciences are becoming their cutting edge in the next future. Clearly, they involve crucial opportunities and drawbacks for the whole society, thus it cannot be solely left to scientists or technology suppliers: this is particularly true for “hot” issues like new technologies, whose novelty is usually associated with risks and opportunities, often over- or understated. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences strongly evocate contradictory feelings, ranging from enthusiasm to mistrust, due to their high degree of novelty, their difficulty to mental mapping and their hazy symbolic representation. In this light, conventional communication is no longer adequate: appropriate communication patterns are required to engage appropriate forces into a dialogue with civil society able to identify those patterns which are desirable, where opportunities, risks and uncertainties are properly addressed. This should enable to settle a sound basis to reaching consensus, achieving sustainable governance and social acceptance for nanotechnologies and nanosciences. 10 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 1.2 RATIONALE Generally speaking, the European Commission is engaged to promote an integrated, safe, responsible and socially acceptable approach for the development and use of nanotechnology. In this light, this workshop aims at identifying useful indications to shape the most appropriate ways to communicate with citizens in order to respond to their expectations and concerns. Overall, media surveys show a positive vision on nanotechnology, identifying the dialogue with society as a crucial priority to promote its acceptance and legitimacy. Still evidence shows that little share of EU population is not interested or not responding to current communication activities on it. In this light, it is crucial to raise the question on what knowledge and awareness is relevant and appropriate for these audiences, if any, for building an appropriate upstream dialogue with the whole civil society. 1.3 GOAL This exercise aims at identifying which messages are appropriate, if any, and which vehicles, techniques and outcomes are to be set up to attain citizens who are not properly informed on nanotechnology, especially tough-to-reach audiences. Assessment of current communication and insight of desirable outcomes will be outlined, and appropriate participatory mechanisms promoting dialogue with the broad civil society could be explored. Assessment of current communication experiences and insight of desirable outcomes will be outlined. This will allow to identifying the most appropriate participatory mechanisms promoting dialogue with the broad civil society. As a result, recommendations will be made for specific actions to be supported under the EU 7th Framework Programme. 1.4 "APPROPRIATE" COMMUNICATION? Overall, media have passed from being very optimistic for stunning discoveries to more realistic and timely approaches featuring real applications. Still, the current sceptical phase is raising questions on the darker side of nanotech, driven by fake nano-products or as a consequence of health problems raised by some cleaning products eg. "Magic-Nano". Surveys through selected EU media3 show a relatively high optimism with respect to the chances/risk ratio associated with nanotechnology, where the highest rates have been attributed to general improvement in the quality of life, development of new materials and health. On the other side, risks are identified in a homogeneous way, from health to military passing through lack of control of production processes. Concluding, most media claim for more research and dialogue with society, strengthening the importance of ethical issues. This is a clear message that more efforts are needed to addressing an appropriate approach on communication in nanotechnology. Clearly, appropriate information is crucial. Despite media coverage, public understanding of nanotechnology is low, as polls in US, Germany and UK show that up to 75% of the lay 3 Nanotechnologie im Spiegel der Medien – Medienanalyse zur Nanotechnologie. Report: http://www.risikodialog.ch/Themen/Nano/nano_publikationen/Medienanalyse%20Nanotechnologie%20final.pdf ; Nanotechnology and Public Attitudes, in: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=143531 11 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 public have poor or distorted knowledge on it4. Additionally, clear differences can be drawn between EU and US: according to these sources, more than half Europeans do not know anything about nanotechnology, compared to one third of sampled Americans. On the other side, only one third of Europeans think nanotechnology is for better, compared to the response provided by half Americans interviewed. This is mainly due to different factors: (i) cultural icons (i.e. memes=nanobots), (ii) the blurring image fostered by popular media (N&N is not explained as a new phase of tech exploiting effects of nanoscale, and (iii) the low efficiency of comparing the nanoworld to two dimensional objects like human hair. The overall picture is something hazy and small, difficult to control, emphasising fears. Concluding, the public is not well informed about nanotechnology, and media (newspaper) emphasize more benefits than risks, although lay public perceive more risks than experts do. Clearly, the crucial issue is the risk factor, and the distinction between perceptual and real risks. Generally speaking, it is possible to evaluate real risks associated to the toxicity of nanotechnology along the life cycle of manufacturing, use and final disposal of nanoengineered products, especially nanoparticles. Identifying and characterising hazards, exposure and the associated risk are the main steps of this process: however, assessing risks is expensive, data are insufficient but sufficient to cause concern, worsened by the lack of clear or unambiguous regulatory regimes. In fact, few companies do risk assessment (over 1000 employees) due to high cost, and most start-up companies do not develop any risk assessment at all, although trust can affect heavily the consumer acceptance of nanotechnology. Perceptual risks seem to prime nanotechnology: this is related with the very low awareness of nanotechnology and to the lack of engagement of consumers on the topic, especially start-up companies. As a consequence, an increasing number of studies advocates for including nonexperts in the process of exploring the mechanisms of social acceptance of nanotechnology, and participatory mechanisms to increase the transparency and effectiveness of this process. Clearly, more research on toxicology is required, joining splintered efforts and sharing data and eliminating ambiguous regulations, hopefully under the shield of an international authority: but more efforts are likely to be needed to identify appropriate mechanisms to promote social awareness on nanotechnology, whose associated potentialities, perceptual and real risks need to be examined. In this light, appropriate communication should identify what is relevant and appropriate to say to target audiences, who should do that, when and how. This will allow to engaging society in an appropriate dialogue, whose participatory mechanism should be explored accordingly. 4 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 12 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 1.5 METHODOLOGY How does success look like Design of desired outcome to framing forthcoming calls… The ultimate result of the present exercise and a main indicator to assess its overall effectiveness is to provide the European Commission with a set of operative keyrecommendations to promote appropriate communication in nanotechnology. These recommendations should be implemented by the Commission into operative funding instruments (eg. specific calls and other funding instruments under Framework Programme 7). Clearly, designing the outcome of communication is the pre-requisite and the benchmark of the results. A set of targeted presentations should assess where are we now and where we want to go and how. Dedicated working groups will be set up to identify what communication is relevant, if any, and appropriate and what participatory mechanisms are desirable to promote dialogue and consensus. I. Where are we now: assessment of current communication outreach and related needs II. Where do we want to be: identify outcomes e.g. attitudinal change in target audiences III. How do we get there: identify audience-oriented messages, sources and vehicles I. Where are we now? A summary of the results coming from the previous sources have been explored, identifying general messages, perceptions, expectations and attitudes. This has outlined what stakeholders, media and lay public say and possibly think on nanotechnology, enabling to sketch a draft answer to the following question: - What do media say? - What do people say? - What other stakeholders say? These answers have allowed us to identify main considerations requiring improving communication outreach on nanotechnology. Then a specific survey outlines the picture of current outreach on nanotechnology carried out by the EC is examined5, EC to identify future communication needs (figure below). Summarising, the following considerations need to be kept in mind while framing an exercise on communication outreach in nanotechnology in order to identify key-recommendations to be implemented by the European Commission: - 75% have poor knowledge on nanotechnology; - media show a positive vision, BUT the lay public perceive more risks than experts; - opportunities (mainly on new materials and health) seem exceed risks (homogeneous); - needed: more research, societal dialogue and attention on ethical issues; - stakeholders' identification, attitudinal group characterisation, identification of keyaudiences (e.g. tough-to-reach, i.e. not interested, not sure, poorly educated youngsters). 5 Survey on communication outreach in nanotechnology through National Contact Points, European Commission, DG RTD G.4, internal draft working paper 13 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Coverage MESSAGE by VEHICLE PRINT MATERIAL WEBS Fundamentals on N&N 8 Applications & Markets 4 EVENTS AUDIOVISUALS General Information 0 S&T Project-specific Info (data reworked from: Survey on communication outreach in nanotechnology through National Contact Points, European Commission, DG RTD G.4, internal draft working paper) 14 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 II. Where do we want to be? Identify desirable end-result from target audiences: outtake (the message) and outcomes (change of attitude) in target audiences. A set of questions can help to identify key-issues to draw the communication strategy, articulating it into objectives and process. - What do we want to do? - What audiences are to target? - What are we expecting from them? As EC is promoting acceptable, integrated and responsible nanotechnology (Action Plan, EC, 2005), a roadmap fostering safe, sustainable and successful nanotechnology is outlined. A set of main actions for doing that has been shaped into a roadmap, horizon 2011 as an outcome of main international forums. SAFE Set up scientific database for risk assessment Promote international standards Safe applications, please tell Dialogue for acceptance SUSTAINABLE Risk assessment is very expensive but necessary Nano-incidents jeopardising trust must be avoided Overregulation handicaps, no regulation is the risk SUCCESSFUL Addressing promptly regulation gaps Funding risk assessment Communication by industry thru media for dialogue Setting up NanoLabels for transparency Summarising, it is possible to identify two main goals: - What communication is appropriate for safe+sustainable+successful nanotech, to whom? - What participatory mechanisms are appropriate for dialogue and engagement of society? Grouping audiences can be done by their attitude to the subject of interest, helping to identify a broad range of possible perceptions that could condition the behaviour respect to nanotechnology. Main audiences are examined in the Annex. One possible approach is targeting stakeholders (see table in Annex) or key-audiences, eg. youngsters, tough-to-reach, handicapped, women, patient associations, researchers, industry, academy, research organisations, multipliers, media. Another approach is to consider several attitudinal groups summarising positive or negative attitudes towards nanotechnology, i.e. believers (very positive), technophiles (positive), prudent supporters (slightly positive), not for me (no reaction), disoriented (prudently negative), concerned (very negative). A change of behaviour in terms of raise of awareness and engagement is the ultimate outcome of the overall exercise, as it should allow policy-makers to shape an appropriate framework for responsible and acceptable nanotechnology. 15 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 III. How do we get there? Identify audience-oriented communication needs, if any, messages, sources and vehicles appropriate messages, sources (eg. media, NGOs, culture-makers) and vehicles to attain them - What is relevant and appropriate for target audiences to know? - Who should reach them, telling what and how? - What participatory mechanisms are appropriate for dialogue? In the perspective of outreach, these messages should be the basis of what should be considered relevant for appropriate communication on nanotechnology: Nano is not magic Nano is new phase of technology exploiting nanoscale effects It deals with new markets, health, safety, privacy, ethics, socioeconomic divide It can be controlled and driven consciously Still, attention should be focussed on the following crucial issues related to nanotechnology which should be dealt adequately by participatory mechanisms. • SAFETY: how will this affect my health, lifestyle and my environment? • PRIVACY: what is this stuff? Can I trust information? Are my freedom affected? • ENGAGEMENT & DECISION-MAKING: how am I being treated? • ETHICS: is it acceptable what are we going to do with that? Summarising, safety, privacy, decision-making and ethics are the crucial issues to be considered when the level of communication has been satisfactorily achieved to set up a participatory dialogue engaging civil society. Details of the messages and vehicles of this process are examined in the Annex, together with the participatory mechanisms and actors that should be identified and set up for this scope. In this light, a set of three main scenarios for the future of nanotechnology has been sketched on the basis of several factors, among communication play a crucial role (see Annex). These considerations should enable to design strategic key-recommendations to help the European Commission to launching specific actions promoting appropriate communication in nanotechnology through dedicated funding instruments under FP7 scheme. A global scheme synthesising the key-issues to be addressed has been outlined in order to achieve a satisfactory fulfilment of the event (Communication outreach in a nutshell, see Annex). 16 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 PART 2: DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY 2.1 INTRODUCTION Nanosciences and nanotechnology are fields of knowledge that are becoming more and more relevant to the public, in the sense that the quickly growing domain of research gives rise to a great number of applications in many fields, from medicine to sports and leisure. Nanotech findings and applications are often the subject of news and media coverage, therefore this interdisciplinary branch of science has become a prominent subject for discussion and pubic interest, although at the same time, scientifically speaking, it is relatively unknown. The basic principles giving rise to nanotech applications are in fact complicated since they relate to modern physics, which is not part of school curricula. Engaging citizens in dialogue and discussion about emerging science and technologies has been recognised by the European Commission as a fundamental component to create the knowledge economy at the basis of the European Union’s Lisbon Agenda. When – as in the case of nanotechnologies – the field of research is of such a clearly ground-breaking nature and has potential applications that open up disconcerting scenarios (such as those aspects linked to the control of personal liberties or the implications in terms of health and pollution), the immediate creation of forums for social debate would seem to be an immediate priority. As the “dilemma” of the English scholar David Collingridge has reminded us, the social attention focused on a new technology normally reaches its peak when – in terms of research, development and applications – it has already become too late to intervene and the only thing that remains is to acknowledge the impact of the technology. For some years now, a model of scientific communication based on the public understanding of science has been replaced by a new approach, linked to the need to consider – besides the transmission of knowledge – values, ideas and different points of view. Due to its immediate potential for application, with the incorporation of viewpoints and needs of non-experts and involving the active presence of researchers in the public arena, contemporary techno-science challenges the traditional distinction between knowledge and power. This is the reason why today increasing reference is being made to a dialogue model or public engagement in science and technology, since it is becoming clearer that knowledge of phenomena and processes on its own – especially in the field of new applications of contemporary science, from biotechnologies to nanotechnologies – does not necessarily imply that they are unconditionally accepted. All this forms part of the new horizons of post-academic science, in which the role of other social participants and stakeholders combines with that of researchers, making it essential to find new forms of collective participation in the processes of knowledge production. As Massimiano Bucchi argues: “Despite their diversity, the forms of involvement of non-experts take the form of increasing cases of public involvement regarding technological and scientific issues. From the second half of the nineties, in particular, citizens have expressed, in a fairly organised form, their desire to be involved to a greater extent in decisions regarding the development of research and innovation”. Similarly, in the new post-academic era of science, the flow of communication between the scientific community and society is becoming increasingly two-directional. It could be argued 17 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 that the creation and evolution “of science centres is simply the interpretation, at the level of museums, of a change in the role of the public communication of science. The Exploratorium of San Francisco was set up at the end of the sixties in an attempt to improve the image of science after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in the wake of the nuclear arms race”. The current evolution of science centres – and the increasing attention they have shown to the public sphere and the discussion in progress – is a logical consequence. Within this theoretical framework, the European Commission has decided to organise a workshop to consult the opinion of experts in the field of science communication and popularisation in order to better shape the calls that will form the FP7 program on nanosciences and nanotechnology. The workshop, titled “Communication outreach in nanotechnology - Developing innovative approaches for public engagement in FP7” was held in Brussels at the EC CDMA building on February 6th, 2007. The workshop also served as a follow up to the the final conference from the Nanodialogue project, which was held on February 5th, 2007, at the European Parliament. NanoDialogue has been funded by the European Commission as part of a specific support action investigating the ethical, social and legal aspects of nanotechnologies. In particular, the objective of the project was to stimulate debate about the various implications, which have not been entirely absorbed by the experts and even less so by the general public, and which yet may have a significant bearing on future research policy. It was based on an original combination between the contribution of the most advanced points of scientific research, the dissemination of science to the general public, and the involvement of social institutions through participatory procedures. The NanoDialogue project identified three levels of communication and the related instruments for creating dialogue with the general public: an interactive exhibition, the chief instrument for museum communication in science centres; a set of activities to be carried out as part of the exhibition, targeted at the involvement of participants in the dialogue, and a web site for discussion even in the absence of immediate physical contact which thus forms a means of prolonging dialogue and discussion in space and time. Many of the participants to the workshop held on February 6th were selected among the partner institutions of the Nanodialogue project. Among the other participants were members of European technology assessment bodies, science centres and universities. They were called on to contribute their success stories and give advice concerning methods ways to effectively communicate nanotechnology and nanosciences to different branches of the public and involve people in a constructive dialogue about the implications of research and its products on daily life. 18 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 2.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EXERCISE The “Communication outreach in nanotechnology - Developing innovative approaches for public engagement in FP7” workshop held in Brussels at the EC CDMA building on February 6th, 2007, had the objective of helping to shape the FP7 forthcoming calls on nanosciences and nanotechnology. The participants, experts in the field of science communciation and participation, were invited to share success and challenge stories on past projects and initiatives, as well as their points of view and best practices in communicating nanosciences and nanotechnology to the broader public, in particular regarding special or difficult publics and the best participatory methods to do this. The aim of the workshop, briefly stated, was: 1. to review and assess the know-how available today for communicating nanotechnology to the public; 2. to generate innovative approaches to engage the broad public with current research and development in nanoscience and nanotechnology. The 7th Framework programme pays considerable attention to responsible research and inclusion of all levels of society in the research agenda of the European Union. The aim of communication activities is no longer merely to inform and educate. Rather the objective has become to create a true dialogue between all the stakeholders – universities and research institutions, industry, civil society, and the general public. Several initiatives, research studies and projects so far have shown that the non-specialized public, which is usually considered the “last stop” of the communication process, a plain receiver of information created by other actors, is in fact interested and motivated to participate to the research process in a more constructive way. Participatory methodologies have been used for quite some time to involve citizens and give them a “voice” in the policy making process, although these are usually restricted to a small number of people, and therefore are not actual models of engagement. Well-established methods, such as media, exhibitions, lectures etc. are being challenged because they are not flexible enough to be quickly adapted to the multiple needs of the European society – diversity in languages, cultures, lifestyles. At the same time, an emergent participatory culture is rising, helped by widespread access to the Internet. With this workshop the Commission aimed to find out what kind of activities can be developed to actually engage large numbers of non-specialized citizens, with different levels of participation and feedback loops to the stakeholders, and what institutions, in the participants’ opinion, were better suited to act as “brokers” between the research field and the general public. Participants were encouraged to think strategically in terms of what role the European Commission could play in fostering innovation in this field, “thinking outside the box” to try build a framework for the future developments of public engagement. 19 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 2.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Many of the workshop participants had taken part in the Nanodialogue project and in the final conference, which was held on the previous day at the European Parliament. The interdisciplinary discussion developed among the experts in that occasion, as well as the many different activities carried out on different levels to communicate nanotechnology related issues to the public, provided the a common starting point for all participants. Furthermore, the EC provided invited experts with a document concerning hopes and expectations of different groups of public on nanotech, as registered in a number of surveys, as well as an overview of public participation models used in various contexts to engage the public in fruitful discussions. Armed with this common information, participants were involved in an open workshop format, where they were asked to put forth any issue or theme they had real possion for and were willing to take real responsibility for. The method, called open space technology, has been used many times over the past twenty years in different settings all over the world since an American business consultant, Harrison Owen, invented it. The basis of the method lies in the diversity of the aprticipants involved and in the interest they have in solving the issue at hand. In the case of nanotechnology communication, the situation was ideal: participants came from different settings and diifferent cultural environments, they were used to dealing with a diverse range of problems and challenges, but they all had in common a desire to improve their communication abilities towards their public and the will to share their accumulated knowledge and experience both among each other and with the European Commission. The open space method offers no pre-organised agenda for the day’s discussions, indeed the only thing that is fixed at the beginning of the workshop is the general theme that occasions the gathering, the start and end time. Thus, it is up to participants to propose topics of discussion and briefly outline their intention in front of their colleagues. The following stage is the spontaneous formation of discussion groups, which may also merge and break out according to participants’ interests and involvement. This freedom allows everyone to put forth the issue they most wish to discuss with their colleagues and encourages creative thinking. Each group convenor is asked to be responsible for the production of a written report where the discussion themes are briefly outlined. In the February 6th workshop, the report format included two sections, the first was related to the topics of discussion brought forth during the gathering, the second referred to the recommendations developed by the group for the European Commission. The reports from the group discussion are reproduced below, in the same format including the discussion outline which introduces the recommendations concerning the actions the Commission is encouraged to carry out in connection to communication of nanotechnology to different publics and in different settings. 20 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 2.4 DISCUSSION RESULTS Group 1 Topic: Next generation –what can science centres and museums do to engage young people in the subject of nanotechnology and to make them aware of the different aspects linked to the applications (risks, benefits, opportunities)? Age of target group: 13-25 Content: The subject of nanotechnology and nanosciences should be introduced to young people in a concrete way, for instance it can be approached more easily through its applications, by presenting examples of objects produced with nanotechnology or by involving young audiences in practical experiments. Risks and opportunities should be mentioned equally and the possibility and need of making choices regarding those applications should be highlighted. Actors: It has to be a close co-operation between schools, labs, policy makers and museums as communicators to benefit youngsters in this area. Schools Labs Policy makers and administration Museums Modes: A provision should be made regarding platforms for youngsters in order to express their expectations and concerns on nano (discussions, online forum etc.). It’s also useful to offer teacher training as the nano topics have not been part of their initial training and are not part of present curricula, so that they see the need for their pupils to learn about NANOTECHNOLOGY and can be directly involved in activities. Activities should be designed as challenges to be mastered and not as topics to be learned. Initially, experiences of nano effects and with nano products and authentic experiments should be developed rather than the scientific background. Theatre and the arts should be used to communicate the nano issue and attract young people to get deeper into the topic. Games and role plays offer the opportunity of shaping and sharpening opinions and making decisions on nano related questions. Approach: The main aim is to instil curiosity in the target group. One approach to reach this would be “professors of choice-making”, who would be science communicators encouraging youngsters to develop their opinion on nanotechnology, either going into schools or inviting schools into labs or M/SCs, which could also function as resource centres of information on nanotechnology. Youngsters should be encouraged to take the initiative ask 21 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 about nanotechnology and use resource centres. This could happen in schools and museums, ideally in co-operation of both. Teenagers prefer to communicate with each other, rather than with younger or older age groups. So, peer group activities should be offered, whenever possible. Recommendations: 1) Communication has to be precise, appropriate, professional, exemplary and start from applications and products. 2) Survey youngsters’ expectations, models of communications, emotions, cultural differences, values, starting from finished projects such as Nanodialogue. 3) Include this surveying and the tetrahedral -model of communication into science calls. 4) Start a discussion on bringing nanotechnology into curricula. Group 2 Topic: Developing appropriate messages for specific target groups – Message improvement according to selected targets To engage the public in scientific issues it is convenient to renew the message orientation, for example to shift discourse from general concerns such as the risk-benefit balance and other oppositions, to focus instead on specific problems, which address the citizen’s concerns, and are identifiable and at the same time ambivalent enough so that they engage people to be responsive: to raise questions (understanding) and responsible: to distil ideas that may prepare civil society to engaging in research policy. We have selected three basic areas of public interest: 1) eugenics/human enhancements; 2) environment/water/waste; 3) privacy. Each of these areas involves questions and produces arguments that embrace scientific, social, legal and ethical matters. Arguments should be distilled in order to build messages that differ according to target groups: age, gender and specific local cultures. HUMAN ENHANCEMENT vs HEALTH Scientific statement Eugenic Social intensification Legal Prosthetic implants Ethical Treatments ENVIRONMENT & SAFETY SURVEILLANCE Life Potability Waste water treatment Design time Nanolifestyles Regulation nanorobotics Recommendations 1) To talk less of general risks and benefits that lead nowhere and to focus on real/near problems, in order to raise new questions and promote responsive and responsible civic attitudes, behaviours and answers. 2) shape targeted messages –age, gender- so that they will appeal to different audiences. 3) Plan for new model for engagement for capacity building and co-operative research. Group 3 22 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Topic: International / Global initiatives What does “European” mean, especially in the field of science? On the one hand we have the geographical concept, the collaborative projects, rather easy to define. But more interesting is the European “quality” of research, which includes social research, attention to the environment, etc. The importance of this quality is now even more evident with the enlargement of the European Union. Science is already international by the way it is done – through the exchange of ideas. But there is now a “Nanodivide” especially with developing countries. However, many countries in Africa and South America, and India and China have developed very effective mechanisms to connect researchers and the community, and to involve young people in science and its communication. In addition, the attitudes of young people towards science are usually more positive in developing countries than in Europe (see: ROSE project. http://www.ils.uio.no/english/rose/). In the communication of nanotechnology there should be a link with Global Warming and climate change, which is an international issue, and has also a very strong local component. Recommendations: 1) Stimulate the inclusion of non-EU countries in the communication and outreach project, with full funding, in order to learn from other contexts which are becoming very relevant to Europe. It should be like research on infectious diseases now which is already done at international level. 2) Funding for exchange and mobility of practitioners in communication, who do not have access to the Marie Curie grants, and need easier and more flexible instruments for such exchanges. 3) Promote the use of “light” participatory tools (like Decide) which are inexpensive, accessible, and flexible across countries and outside Europe. 4) Promote access to the existing international efforts in this field (such as the NISE network6) with the possibility to adapt and translate the findings of such enterprises. Group 4 Topic: Immigrants In order to reach out to a more diverse public in Europe, it is important to take into consideration the following facts: 6 In science communication in Europe there are still strong stereotypes of white western people and society; We often refer to non-EU countries as a “threat” to Europe (for jobs, economic development) and immigrants from those countries might likely feel like they are part of this “threat” There are important differences in (cultural) habits - for example, immigrants are not likely to visit science museums, they often watch satellite TV channels from their http://www.nisenet.org 23 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 country of origin rather than local channels, they read non-mainstream newspapers etc. Recommendations 1) Do a study/survey on cultural habits in order to understand why immigrants often don’t visit museums or science centres/debates/café scientifique etc. 2) Mobility and work: facilitate hiring staff from communities of immigrants in order to develop meaningful initiatives. 3) European projects should also look at the economic impact of nanotechnology in developing countries, in order to increase the meaningfulness of nanotechnology to communities of immigrants. 4) Co-production of exhibitions and programs with science centres from Asian and African countries. 5) Promote the development of activities in “humble partnership” with communities of immigrants – learning from each other. 6) Build on existing local cultural and ethnic festivals. 7) The “car repair market” model: events where people come to do “ordinary” technology things (like repairing their car, for example), they can exchange tools and tips, and get in touch with the “technology of the future” (or even of the present!) with workshops and other initiatives. 8) Nanofood and Nanomusic: food and music are among the strongest way to promote integration across cultures. They could be used to create contexts for awareness, with collaborations with artists (like the Wellcome Trust SciArt7). It could be about ethnic food and music with a nano perspective. 9) Fund the translation of books/movies in non-European languages and distribute them in the communities. 10) Movies: remake and adaptations of Indian movies and introduce current science and (nano)technology. Group 5 Topic: Hands-on Nanotechnology: how do we explain the invisible? So far there are few exhibitions worldwide which tackle nanoscience/technologies in a hands on manner8. It is difficult to speak about things that are not visible, but often non-experts tend to understand only what is visible. At the same time, things like bacteria are accepted even if they are not visible because they are well-connected with everyday life. Hands-on exhibitions can be developed taking examples from other topics. For example: hands on exhibits on electricity do not speak about electrons but about what happens. Shall we do the same with Nano? Start from applications, observe what happens and proceed from there. Another way is to work with comparisons: show the differences between a process/product with and without nano effects. Also, try to develop exhibits which show scale and what “small” means in nano terms. For all this, the collaboration between museums (which are experts in handson and informal learning) and researchers (experts in content) can be really important for the development of effective and successful hands-on. 7 8 http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/node2530.html Some examples of exhibits and exhibitions on nano: http://qt.exploratorium.edu/niseresources/resourcelist.php?categoryID=46, but also the recent exhibition at CCSTI in Grenoble http://www.ccsti-grenoble.org/02_programme.php?code_ana=NANO 24 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Recommendations 1) cooperation between science communicators (museums-science centres) and scienceresearch labs in order to develop hands-on exhibits together that show nano-effects. 2) More funding for the study and development of ways to allow citizens to experience and understand nano. Nowhere in the world is there yet an exhibition that tackles the issue effectively yet. 3) Develop a database for copyright free access to experiments on nano for communication purposes. Group 6 Topic: What is NT? The term nanotechnology is hard to define. Nanotechnology is an enabling technology that plays a role in many fields of application. From a scientific point of view it is therefore hard to define the field of nanotechnology. This leads to radical statements like: nanotechnology does not exist or it is only a hype concept to ensure financing of research, that otherwise would be named differently. From a social constructivist point of view nanotechnology is what social actors call nanotechnology. For example, the fact that nanotechnology is used to get research funding proves that it does exist. It has meaning for the social actors involved. In fact, the term nanotechnology is also used by the communication and TA community to stimulate debate and communication about technology and society. Nevertheless, the shear broadness of the term does make communication on nanotechnology and social debate around nanotechnology problematic. To deal with this problem of definition and communication, several approaches could be taken: (1) skip the term nanotechnology because it is too broad, (2) speak about nanotechnologies instead of nanotechnology, (3) communicate and discuss about specific fields of application and clarify that nanotechnology is a major driver for the future of these fields. Recommendations It would be most fruitful to take the third approach. Sometimes this means that a discussion is organised not under the umbrella of nanotechnology. Besides talking about fields of applications, it is important though to also look at the broad development that takes place under the term nanotechnology. An even better term to designate the broad development is NBIC convergence or new emerging technologies. Nanotechnology, in other words, is a very useful term to make visible the broad development in science (the new science). It is important to create public awareness about these new scientific developments. Make clear to the public what already is possible, and what the future visions are from science and industry. This double approach is illustrated here below. Moreover, some very important fields of application are also mentioned here. In discussing these fields of applications, one should make clear the nano-component. 25 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 converging + different application areas Man-machine interaction toxicity Synthetic biology Ambient intelligence tissue engineering Group 7 Topic: Open Research Centres and Universities Science communication activities should not only focus on established science, rather they should include the research that is going now. Also, educational and science-society activities should facilitate interaction between researchers and the public, for instance through organised visits to real labs. These activities need to be organised during the course of research projects between research institutions and science communicators, for the public, leading to a triangle between these three actors. The Deutsches Museum is now working on an outreach centre to communicate for their universities. The Barcelona Science park and the university of Barcelona also have one, and in Italy and Germany universities are talking about its 3rd mission which should be communication. This task should be carried out by science communicators coming from these institutions in collaboration with professionals from the science museums. By doing so we could attain the following objectives: improve public perception of scientists communicate emerging sciences and research projects disseminate the methodology of science gain support, awareness and public understanding of science promote scientific careers Recommendations 1) We strongly recommend to push research centres and universities to open up to the public by using the expertise of science communicators. Group 8 Topic: Dialogue for Engagement It could be useful to involve powerful NGOs (for example Greenpeace) to attract a broader audience to dialogue. What is dialogue? Talking and listening between all stakeholders – policy makers, NGOs, public, scientists on a level platform. Dialogue is the first method of engagement. It’s an effective tool that can be used to increase transparency in policy mechanisms, make discussions more reflexive, clarify social impacts of technology. In outreach, dialogue could be a useful tool to deal with the so-called ‘participation paradox.’ When people state they want to participate but don’t actively involve themselves— even though they think that their representatives must do what the people who elected them feel— initiating dialogue provides a way of surveying perceptions of different people. 26 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Cultural differences need to be taken into account when trying to engage different groups in activities, again, dialogue can achieve this. The starting point for dialogue on nanotechnology issues relates to what issues/problems are happening in society and how these relate to the (nano) technology. Linking social problems to nanotechnology is important to make it relevant and to generate interest/engagement in the topic. Recommendations Use different methods to generate dialogue, e.g. comedy, theatre performances etc. outside science centres and museums, during leisure time/space, on a regular basis, for example for one month. Good dialogue: need to establish goals/aims that are clear, need to be transparent, scientifically accurate, unbiased (facts not opinions) Stress the importance of dialogue as the basis of engagement in emerging technologies relating to nanotechnology Engage policy makers, ensuring that they will listen to the results of dialogue. Group 9 Topic: Values and Visions: hierarchical scaling In order to communicate effectively about science, it is essential to first identify which criteria should be used for establishing risks and benefits. It is also useful to establish a hierarchy of benefits considering the limits of human life. Limits are associated to therapeutical and chirurgic reconstructing and also quality of life. Neverthless, the use of the nanotechnologies in order to upgrade the human body over of the limits set by nature should be not included in the research priorities. Topics from a hierarchical point of view are: o Health: human in the environment; energy and water o Safety o Privacy o Ethics: nanodivide, choice decisions, responsibility Recommendations: 1) Limit research following a selective moderation principle; considering the exposed populations: product, users and effects of waste for all. Producers are affected immediately in a strong way, users are exposed later but longer. The waste is persistent in time and involves every one. 2) All information should converge to an “international organism” that guarantees the civil population regarding the risks of the new technologies. Group 10 Topic: How/why do we fall in love There is more to life than knowledge, and we should take into account the different kind of rationalities involved with learning, choosing, being attracted. Motivation to discover changes with different targets, different contexts. Motivation to discover and enjoy something new – like NT – is often trickled by emotions coming from beauty, from something moving 27 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 or surprising, from a feeling of mystery, from an emotional engagement. There is a need for a resource centre on NT to connect the different players – scientists, artists, communicators, etc. Recommendations Involve passionate people. Nanolovers but not Nanohooligans, for instance in science centres and museums, which are especially well equipped to do this. Meetings of passions concerning science (NT) could well result in the creation of works of art (in various forms). Science communication experts and policy makers need to acknowledge that there may be different ways of approaching a subject effectively. 2.5 CONCLUSIONS: STRATEGY FOR COMMUNICATION OUTREACH IN NANOTECHNOLOGY There is a widely recognised need to involve the public, or more specifically, different and ever wider branches of public, in science and nanotechnology communication and debate about controversial issues. At the same time, it is clearly necessary to engage policy makers in the process of communication at an early stage, ensuring that they will endorse the dialogue practice and encourage it actively, as well as be open to listening and taking into account the results of such dialogue. The following are the main points emerging from the discussion, in the form of specific recommendations and proposals to the EC from workshop participants. Survey the public’s needs and expectations Participants recommend that the EC take special pains to get to know the public or publics they wish to inform and engage in activities on nanotechnology. This need is particularly strong in the case of those “special” or “difficult” groups that have been shown not to take part in usual mainstream activities. It is therefore recommended to provide funding within the FP7 projects to: Survey youngsters’ expectations, models of communications, emotions, cultural differences, values, starting from finished projects such as Nanodialogue. Include this surveying and the tetrahedral model (i.e. schools-science centres/museums-labs-policy makers) of communication into science calls Do a study on cultural habits of immigrants, in order to understand why these groups often don’t visit museums or science centres/debates/café scientifique etc. Provide funding for the study and development of ways in which citizens can experience and understand nano. Nowhere in the world is there yet an exhibition that tackles the issue effectively yet. Develop new tools for communication and debate 28 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 If the aim is involving new branches of the public, previously ignored or uninterested in the communication strategies implemented, then it is necessary to devise new techniques and new tools to do this, especially tailored for specific needs and target groups. Science communication experts and policy makers need to acknowledge that there may be different ways of approaching a subject effectively. Workshops participants recommend that the EC: Promote the use “light” and non-conventional tools to engage the public with science, for example discussion games (such as the Decide9 card game), theatre and art workshop activities, with collaborations with artists (like the Wellcome Trust SciArt10), performances etc. The “car repair market” model, for example, puts together events where people come to do “ordinary” technology things (like repairing their car, for example), they can exchange tools and tips, and get in touch with the “technology of the future” (or even of the present!) with workshops and other initiatives. Food and music are among the strongest ways of promoting integration across cultures, for example activities about ethnic food and music with a nano perspective could be used to create contexts for awareness. The translation of books/movies in non-European languages and distribution in the immigrant communities could promote their inclusion in scientific debate. Take advantage of the privileged position science centres have taken up as mediators between the research community and the public- at least a section of the public, including young people – to create new opportunities for outreach and science communication through different activities, but also operate outside of these centres and in non-institutional settings in order to maximise impact and draw in publics who do not usually attend science-oriented events: cultural fairs, everyday technical events but also research labs where scientists are at work; activities and programs should be organised during leisure time/space, on a regular basis, for example for once a month. Ensure access to reliable information Nanotechnology is based on contemporary physics concepts that are not part of school curricula; it is no surprise, therefore, that the underlying technical knowledge is not widespread through the population in general. Moreover, workshop participants have expressed a desire to be able to collaborate with researchers and experts in the field in order to produce clear, reliable and targeted information for the public. They therefore recommend that the EC: 9 Promote dialogue between stakeholders by introducing the ethical, social and legal dimension of science. The discussion should focus both on practical aspects and outcomes of scientific knowledge, touching directly on applications that influence people’s daily life with the associated risks and opportunities, and on the way science develops – the NBIC convergence or new emerging technologies. It is important to create public awareness about these new scientific developments, specifying what is possible already and what the future visions are from science and industry. In order for a good dialogue to be implemented there is a need to provide be scientifically accurate, unbiased information and to be transparent and establish clear goals/aims. See http://www.playdecide.org http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/node2530.html 10 29 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 ensure that laypeople have access to sources that offer accurate information about nanotechnology and nanosciences as well as its applications and products, for example by developing a database for copyright free access to experiments on nano for communication purposes, or by funnelling all information towards an “international organism” that guarantees the civil population regarding the risks of the new technologies. Ensure that research and knowledge-shaping are strongly linked with science communication activities, both by actively encouraging research centres and universities to open up to the public by using the expertise of science communicators and by planning new models for engagement for capacity building and co-operative research. Involve communication experts in writing targeted messages –age, genderso that they will appeal to different audiences. Start a discussion on bringing nanotechnology into curricula. Open to new groups and publics In the global world we share, it is ever more important to take into account the international and intercultural dimension of issues. This is especially true in the case of science, which is by definition non-country specific in its scope. The workshop participants recommend the EC take this perspective into consideration in the implementation of programs through the following actions: 11 Stimulate the inclusion of non-EU countries in the communication and outreach project, with full funding, in order to learn from other contexts which are becoming very relevant to Europe, for instance through the co-production of exhibitions and programs with science centres from Asian and African countries and by building on existing local cultural and ethnic festivals with communities of immigrants. Provide funding for exchange and mobility of practitioners in communication, who do not have access to the Marie Curie grants, and need easier and more flexible instruments for such exchanges. Facilitate hiring staff from communities of immigrants in order to develop meaningful initiatives. Promote access to the existing international efforts in this field (such as the NISE network11) with the possibility to adapt and translate the findings of such enterprises. European projects should also look at the economic impact of nanotechnology in developing countries, in order to increase the meaningfulness of nanotechnology to communities of immigrants. http://www.nisenet.org 30 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 2.6 Strategy for communication outreach in nanotechnology in a nutshell I. Where are we now: assessment of current communication outreach and related 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 what should be done by whom, who and how should be involved, 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 toolss for dialogue Implement appropriate participatory mechanisms What audiences are to target? Attitudinal tough-to-reach audiences (eg. tough-toreach, not for me, disoriented, not-responsive) strategic audiences: youngsters and NGOs Target-groups, patient associations, immigrants Non-EU countries stakeholders, eg.communicators What are we expecting from them? Exchange information, input and warning Change in attitude and behaviour Raising awareness Building engagement 31 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 III. How do we get there What is relevant and appropriate for EC to know? Identify crucial needs, messages, sources and vehicles to develop appropriate communication and dialogue KNOWING AUDIENCES Funding surveys, studies and activities to get an insiders 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, eg. youngsters, tough-to-reach, notresponsive, immigrants, non-EU communicators --- --- --- --- --- --- --- What is relevant and appropriate for EC to do? SUIT APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION and DIALOGUE 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 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, eg. 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 NON-EU STAKEHOLDERS, eg. communicators Funding for exchange and mobility of communicators Shape "light" participatory tools (eg."Decide") Promote access to international activities (eg. NISE-like efforts) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- How to do that? SET UP APPROPRIATE VEHICLES by AUDIENCE Hands-on approach 32 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 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 periodic 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 eg. theatre, arts, game, role-play Involve passionate people Focus on conscious nanolovers, not nanohooligans --- --- --- --- --- --- --- What is relevant and appropriate for audiences to know? MESSAGES Moderation principle: NOT what message does with the audience BUT what audience does with message. Then modulate 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 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- What is relevant for audiences 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 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”? --- --- --- --- --- --- --- What participatory mechanisms are appropriate for dialogue? PRINCIPLES Establish goals/aims of dialogue and engagement Cosider the ‘participation paradox': people state they want to participate but don’t actively engage themselves 33 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Stress dialogue as the basis of engagement APPROACHES 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 to 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 34 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 ANNEXES A.1 AUDIENCES Generally speaking, the hardest of these audiences is to identify who they are as they are likely to be spread within a community. However thinking about whether there are specific types of people that we want to attract will help we to build our strategy and plan. Do we want people who are interested and positively supportive or people who are concerned, whose fears we want to hear and understand? In fact, what is important is that we have given serious thought to who the desired audience is and why we wish to attract this specific group of people. Audiences are different from stakeholders, characterised by different interest in the issue. Main stakeholders' attitudes on nanotechnology are summarised as follows: 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 Main audiences are examined accordingly. Clearly, involving the public into a dialogue requires an additional approach, based on pre-defined attitudes as a result of a previous communication, usually done by media and mass culture-suppliers. Overall, grouping audiences by their attitude to the subject of interest can be used as an effective approach to address the broad range of possible perceptions that could bias or condition the behaviour respect to nanotechnology. Several attitudinal groups summarising positive (+) or negative (-) attitudes can be considered: o o o o o o Believers +++ Technophiles ++ Prudent supporters + Not for Me + Disoriented -Concerned - - - 35 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 The following table gives a brief description of some key features of these groups, providing insight into their attitudes, demographics, leisure and media use (from literature and EC surveys). Visited places Not visited places Most used media Welleducated, middle aged, good gender balance Cinema, historic sites, theme centre, or museum Art exhibition, theme park, zoo TV : moderate (including scientific programming) Internet: high Newspaper: low Radio : low Well educated in science, mostly male, around thirties, with children Young, average household income and education Cinema, historic sites, theme centre, or museum Debate, meeting, art exhibition, zoo Internet : very high TV : low newspaper : low Cinema, historic site Debate, meeting, Art exhibition, zoo TV : moderate to high Newspaper: high tabloids : high Radio : moderate Internet : moderate 75% share has no science qualifications . Half are at least 65. Skilled manual workers Lowest household incomes and education, Unskilled manual workers with young children Female mostly, average household income and education levels Cinema, theme park, sporting event, zoo Debate, talk, lecture, meeting, Art exhibition, opera TV : very high . tabloids : very high Radio : close to zero Internet : very low Newspaper: low Cinema, visitor centre, theme park, historic site Debate, talk, lecture, meeting, Art exhibition, museum TV : high tabloids : very high Internet : very low Radio: low Newspaper: very low Attitudinal audience Believer +++ Best-fitting sentence The benefits of science outweigh risks Social profile Technophile ++ I am interested in science as part of daily life Prudent supporter + Science and technology are making our lives better Not for Me _ I am not able to understand the role of science in daily life Disoriented It is hard to understand the role of science, thus I am not interested 12 __ Less used media tabloid : very low Cinema, visitor Opera, art Newspaper: TV : moderate Science is a centre, historic exhibition, zoo very high Internet : phenomenon site, theatre. tabloids : high moderate out of control, thus risks are likely to become threats (Reworked from: “Science and Society”, 2000, “Dialogue with the public: practical guidelines, 2002"; "Survey through NCPs on communication outreach; "Communication Plan on nanotechnology", EC DG RTD, Dir.G.4, limited distribution) Concerned ___ 12 The answers “Don’t know” or “do not agree or disagree” dominate 36 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 A.2 MESSAGES Overall, the exploration of appropriate messages from communication sources on nanotechnology could be necessary, in order to meet the range of attitudes and changing the corresponding behaviours in audiences. Media, culture-makers, NGOs, business and policymakers should be examined. Overall, messages are different when addressing appropriate communication, aiming at raise awareness, and when address dialogue to create consensus. It§ is possible to group messages into these two main categories of communication. I. Appropriate communication = information transfer raising awareness Nano is not magic Nano is new phase of tech exploiting nanoscale effects It deals with new markets but also with health, safety, privacy, socioeconomic divide It can be controlled and driven consciously II Participatory mechanisms = addressing dialogue create consensus & engagement First, exploring issues on N&N which are currently or potentially causing public controversy (eg. risk, hazard, uncertainty); second, issues on N&N where the impact on society is not yet clarified; eventually, issues on N&N that are relevant to society but not controversial We suggest that this classification can be focussed on a scale according to whether or not a message is crucial to a certain audience: Those we MUST communicate: what is crucial to know Those we SHOULD communicate: what is appropriate Those we would LIKE to communicate: what could be helpful In general, the types of controversy on nanotechnology fall into four categories of risk: SAFETY: health, lifestyle and environmental concerns (How will this affect me/my family's health and lifestyle? How does it affect my environment?) PRIVACY : data and information concerns (What is this stuff? Can I trust our information? Increased surveillance due to nano-capabilities jeopardises everyday freedoms?) ENGAGEMENT & DECISION-MAKING : process concerns (How am I being treated?) ETHICS: management concerns (Is it acceptable what are we going to do with that?). The following checklist represents some common concerns that came up from circulating this list through surveys. This exercise pinpoints what we might expect to hear when we ask the questions identified in the previous checklist. We cannot overemphasise that each situation is different and each stakeholder has their own set of specific concerns. It may be helpful for us to check off the questions we anticipate. We may want to review the list again after we have contacted our stakeholders about their concerns. Finally, this checklist should be referred to when we are determining communication tactics and messages. 1. SAFETY: Health, lifestyle and environmental concerns • What is the danger to my health and that of my family, especially due to nanoparticles, eg. cosmetics? • Can I drink the water, eat the food, etc.? • 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 other environmental exposures. Will nanotechnology increase our risk? • How will this affect our quality of life/property values, the stigma of nanotechnology attached to our 37 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 community, trucks on our local roads, etc.? • How will this affect environmental health and integrity & aesthetics? 2. PRIVACY: Data and information concerns • How sure are we? • 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? • 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 nano-related damages can't happen. Why not? 3. ENGAGEMENT & DECISION-MAKING: Process concerns Although researchers tend to focus on data, stakeholders may be concerned with issues like: • How will we be involved in decision-making? • How will we communicate with us? • Why should we trust us? • How and when can we be reached? • Who else are we talking with? • When will we get any feedback? 4. ETHICS: risk management concerns Concerns about how the issue or risk will be handled are often more important to people than details about the data. • What ethical, moral and religious implications are involved? • When will the problem be corrected, if any, and how? • Is our reaction to these issues ethically appropriate? • What are the other options? Why do we favour a certain option? • 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? 38 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 A.3 PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS The critical thing in promoting dialogue is providing not only the time for “audience” participation, but using techniques that positively encourage it and providing information that supports it. More details on the most appropriate technique to addressing various audiences are examined. It is relatively easy to turn a straight talk into an activity that promotes dialogue, and there are a number of ways of encouraging widespread participation: Whatever a dialogue activity will be, the first pre-requisite is to actually have people to talk to and listen to. A draft figure showing the best-fitting successful techniques for each attitudinal group is provided coming from main literature review (eg. “Dialogue with the Public, practical guidelines” 2002) and dedicated surveys. Clearly, any event will tend to attract particular types of people and not others. Generally speaking, it is possible to summarise the following considerations. 1 - talks are more effective at reaching those sections of the population that are most highly educated, the Believers and the Technophiles 2 - for the less educated groups, talks are a very poor method, as for these people large institutions, particularly educational ones, are unfamiliar places, that will have largely been unsuccessful for members of both the Disoriented and Not for Me groups 3 - Meetings and debates are therefore better than lectures at reaching out to those who are interested in science but who may feel more “outside the political and scientific establishments” than the Confident Believers and the Technophiles. The tone and level of delivery should therefore take this on board. 4 – Science Festivals are dominated by supportive of science - the Confident Believers, Technophiles and Supporters, so for the most part we will be working within that framework. However, the Concerned see science as important and attend in reasonable numbers, so we might think of running a discussion specifically for those who want to debate contentious issues – whatever their perspective. 5- Museums and Science Centres are visited mostly by Believers and Technophiles, dominating the other attitudinal groups. 6 - shopping centres have different visitor profiles depending on the area, range and nature of the shops and so on. 7 – internet variety of media can be used including audio, video, pictures and text. Technophiles were the only cluster where more than a third of people actually used the Internet and less than one in ten of the Not for Mes used the Internet Summarising, it is possible o synthesise in the following tables the main mechanisms and techniques addressing different audiences, selecting the most appropriate: this can allow to calibrate tailor-made participatory mechanisms to involve society into a dialogue on appropriate nano-related issues. 39 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Technique Theatre meetings Interactive meetings Main features Meetings have traditionally been the bedrock of science communication. They can be all day events or what might be described as one-third day events, that is morning, afternoon or evening. Time of day will also colour who participates. To involve a variety of people meetings must be held in the evenings and in a range of locations, geographical and institutional. The venue will impact on the image of the meeting and the people willing to go. Universities, museums, even hotels are unfamiliar places to many people. Schools, hospitals and religious premises all come with certain images and values. As described in chapter 5, it is relatively easy to turn a traditional monologue style of meeting into a much more interactive dialogue style by building in time and space for the audience to ask questions and state their views. Using techniques such as break-out groups and moderated table discussions can encourage greater levels of interaction. Deliberative Polls Deliberative polling is based on the Greek model of direct democracy and the New England town meeting, rather than representative democracy as practised in the UK. As conducted so far in the UK, a representative sample of the population is polled on a particular topic and invited to a weekend debate at a central venue. During the weekend those who attend (typically this has been about one-third of the 1,000 originally polled) are given presentations by key players in the topic and an opportunity to question them. A large part of the time is spent in small groups where debate about the issues takes place led by a qualitative researcher trained in moderation techniques. At the end of the weekend participants are polled again on the issue. In one case participants were polled several months after the deliberative event to see how, if at all, opinions had subsequently changed. Consultative Panels A consultative panel is an attempt to combine the need to impart information on the subject under discussion with the opportunity to debate the issue and to measure the views of participants. Panels can be large enough to allow nationally representative samples, or smaller with specific expertise according to the needs of the organisers. 40 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Focus Groups Discussions, loosely structured around a “topic guide” that acts as an aide memoire for the researcher, usually take place in the evening and last for between 1½ and two hours. If the group to be interviewed do not work (e.g. mothers of young children, retired people) groups may be held during the day. The most common (and cheapest) location is the recruiter’s home or that of the respondent or their place of work. Hotels are also used. Increasingly clients want to view discussions and there are a number of viewing facilities around the UK fitted with one-way mirrors to enable several people to view a group at the same time. This can be a powerful way of demonstrating to “experts” how non-specialists relate to subjects. Clients can sit-in on groups held in other types of venues but only one at a time or the dynamic of the group is affected. Citizens’ Juries A jury is usually run on three to four consecutive days. Presentations are made and jurors are able to call for evidence from people they select, although this is usually based on a list provided by the organisers. During the time spent together, in addition to presentations and questioning those presenting information, there is considerable moderated debate. A final report is drafted by the moderator and agreed by the jurors. Participants meet at weekends. One or two weekends, some weeks apart are used as briefing sessions. These are held in private and allow the members time to get to grips with the issue. There is then a public phase where experts are called and questioned. The participants write the final report. Conferences tend to be run over fairly long time periods of several months. Participants are sent a series of questionnaires. The first questionnaire asks each participant to engage in individual brainstorming so as to identify the issues and generate as many ideas as possible for dealing with the issues. The second questionnaire contains all the ideas sent in response to the first questionnaire and provides space for participants to refine each idea, to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of each idea for addressing the issue, and to identify new ideas. A third questionnaire then summarizes the input from the second questionnaire and asks for additional clarification, strengths, weaknesses, and new ideas. This stage can be repeated if it is felt necessary. The end product is a list of ideas with their concomitant strengths and weaknesses. This is very similar to the Delphi Technique but it allows for differences between the participants and the result is a map of concerns whereby different categories of specialists concerns can be identified. Most commonly a keynote paper by someone well known in the field introduces the debate and people are invited to comment on the article or put forward their views. It is also usual to have the debate moderated in some way to stop abusive or otherwise inappropriate comments being circulated. This can be very labour intensive, particularly if a fairly instant turn round on moderated debate is required. A document is drafted by the organisers that lays out the issues and raises questions. Views are then canvassed on the document. These documents Consensus Conferences Delphi Technique Multi-criteria Mapping Web Discussions Written Consultations 41 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 may be quite open or they may be highly structured. It is becoming increasingly common for central Government to consult in this way on draft regulations or guidelines. It is now virtually standard practice to put the consultation document on the website of the organising body. The main theoretical concept behind quantitative surveys is that all Quantitative respondents are asked the same question in the same way. Interviewers are Surveys therefore trained to read out the question, but not to elaborate. Great efforts should be extended to ensure that the questions are understood and elicit the required information. Major surveys pilot questionnaires to ensure this. Interviews in the UK are often conducted face-to-face and carried out in the street, on the doorstep or in-home. Street and doorstep interviews cannot last more than 10 minutes but in-home interviews can last considerably longer. A usual rule of thumb is that longer than 40 minutes will begin to affect the response rate and therefore the accuracy of true probability surveys and data quality in all surveys. Interviews can also be conducted over the telephone and by post. There are also other ways of distributing self-completion questionnaires, but to provide representative results distribution must be appropriately controlled. There are limitations and benefits to each of these approaches. The idea is to set up a global exercise to identify the perceptions, Citizens Conferences& awareness, concerns and expectations in terms of participation to the decision-making process expressed by citizens with respect to a specific Declaration issue. Clearly, national, regional and local authorities should be involved, established networks as well as new dedicated networks should be used. This exercise will allow to produce the following deliverables as the main outcomes: a) identification of the main needs of information and knowledge expressed by the citizens in order to have the appropriate related awareness and participate to the relevant decision-making process, impacting on future regulation and markets b) identification of the main perceptions, awareness, concerns and expectations of selected groups of citizens and audiences on different levels; c) identification of appropriate participatory mechanisms allowing citizens to express their voice beyond expert-based and subsidiarybased systems, harmonising direct with representative democratic participation on the debated issue; d) identification of a Citizens’ declaration, thanks to which a clear overall vision identifying those issues, related achievements, applications and scenarios which are acceptable those which are not or need further attention and social debate. 42 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Communication techniques addressing specific audiences on nanotechnology BELIEVERS PRINT PERSON-TOPERSON MEDIA APPROACH AUDIO-VISUAL TALKS MEETINGS/ DEBATES FESTIVALS MUSEUMS SHOPPING CENTRES COMMERCIAL ISATION-LIKE TECHNIQUE INTERACTIVE WEB TECHNOPHILES PRUDENT SUPPORTERS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NOT FOR ME DISORIENTED CONCERNED X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Possible participatory mechanisms addressing audiences on nanotechnology Believers Techno philes Prudent Supporters Not for Me Disoriented Concerned Theatre meetings Interactive meetings Deliberative Polls Consultative Panels Itinerant events eg. nanotruck Focus Groups Citizens’ Juries Consensus Declaration Delphi Technique Multi-criteria Mapping Web forum Written Consultations Quantitative Surveys 43 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 A.4 PARTICIPATORY MECHANISMS BY ISSUE 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 Is the public aware of the issue? Yes No Is the public knowledgeable about the issue? Yes No What sort of feedback do we want? What sort of feedback do we want? Qualitative Quantitative Focus groups Survey Qualitative Meetings Focus groups Web or written consultations Citizens’ jury What sort of feedback do we want? Quantitative Deliberative poll Consultative panel Qualitative Focus groups Consensus conference Citizens’ jury Quantitative Deliberative Poll 44 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 A.5 NANOTECHNOLOGY: FUTURE SCENARIOS? (source: Nanologue project, www.nanologue.net ) Scenario 1 (gloom) A campaign by a mass membership NGO to alert the public to the potential risks of nanotechnologies was undertaken. At the launch event a speech by a major respected public figure warned against “the insidious danger of meddling at the nanoscale”. The campaign received little public support. The final reports of public-funded projects to promote stakeholder dialogue on the social, environmental and economic risks and opportunities of nanotechnologies were produced, but received little attention. 2007 Nanotechnology-enabled consumer products went mainstream. Household paint that changed colour according to temperature was one such product. Another was anti-ageing cream. Later in the year an EU-funded study of the effects of nanoparticles on human health was published, showing some evidence for a negative effect. The report recommended more research to confirm the critical findings. A public opinion poll of European citizens showed that, among the minority that had heard of nanotechnology, most had positive associations with the term, though didn’t necessarily trust public institutions to govern the application of the science effectively. 2008 An international symposium on nanotechnologies took place, at which agreement was reached about the need for a Global Framework on Emerging Technologies to regulate the production and use of nanotechnologies. Work started on developing the Framework. A brand of nanocoating for cars was recalled as it was found to peel off under extreme weather conditions and release nanoparticles into the environment. 2009 The combination of concerns around product safety and the lack of regulation meant that nanotechnology products were still peripheral in the marketplace. A major venture capital firm announced that it had embargoed all investment in nanotechnology-related products, citing a failure of the technology to deliver in the market as expected. Although a few other companies followed the lead, this decision was ridiculed by most in mainstream science. An editorial in ‘Nature’ magazine said the decision was “not only foolish, but dangerous.” 2010 The UK Government publicly criticised the Global Framework on Emerging Technologies for moving too slowly and introduced its own, watered-down, guidelines. These were voluntary. 2011 Workers at a factory in Toulouse went on strike, refusing to work with nanoparticles following a number of medical complaints. Demonstrations spread across Europe. The number of occupational health related court cases increased. A campaign by a major NGO was launched, calling for a moratorium on nanoscience and technologies until more was known about the health and environmental effects. 2012 In April, the process for delivering the Global Framework on Emerging Technologies broke down and efforts to create a level playing fi eld internationally were abandoned. A major explosion occurred at a plant on the outskirts of Seoul, which released several tonnes of nanoparticles into the environment. 2013 Routine monitoring of marine pollution in the Sea of Japan found high levels of nanopollutants in fish. This was traced to the Korean explosion. Further tests showed the particles in drinking water in Japan, leading to a public outcry. It emerged that some athletes competing in the London Olympics 2012 were using nanotechnology-based 45 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 performance enhancing drugs. ‘Forbes’ magazine stopped publishing its list of bestselling nanotechnology-related products. 2014 Residues of manufactured nanoparticles were discovered in Arctic sea ice. A coherent EU regulatory framework for nanoscience and technology was fiinalised, based loosely on the UK guidelines. A consortium of European businesses published a report criticising the EU framework and committed to developing its own, stricter guidelines. Scenario 2 (bright) The European Commission developed a platform for dialogue between scientists, product developers, NGOs, consumer groups and others on the social and environmental aspects of nanotechnology. Early progress was made with some quick wins including: a. Funding allocated for The European Centre for Environment, Health, Safety and Toxicology (ECEHST). Moves to include training on the ethical, legal and social aspects of nanotechnology into all higher education courses. b. An immediate review to establish the extent to which current regulation covers nanotechnology specific risks . Development of a protocol for the assessment of risk and implementation of moratoriums,if necessary. c. A requirement for all funding applications to be accompanied with a completed ethical, legal and social aspects (ELSA) assessment Education programmes and funding to support development of skills and mitigate anticipated skills shortage in Europe Media workshops and other communication on the potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology were successful in galvanising a balanced and informed public discussion. 2007 The European Commission’s Framework 7 research funding programme began. Research funds for the following seven years were directed towards “nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies” and the extent to which they contribute to addressing European social, economic, environmental and industrial challenges. An OECD process for developing standards on nanoparticles commenced. The ECEHST was opened. The centre identified potentially harmful particles, provided guidance for regulation (eg where moratoriums were necessary) and advised on safety issues for workers and users. The OECD standards on nanoparticles were launched, hot on the heels of the Chinese standards. An overhaul of the intellectual property/patenting system was announced. The first moratoriums were announced and a number of products were recalled, based on research from the ECEHST. The first local stakeholder debate took place after research linked a factory making metal oxide nanorods to cancer clusters. 2013 Privacy came to the forefront of the debate. Nanosensors tracked what people bought, where they went and even what they said. The media and civil rights groups branded this an infringement on civil liberty and the public took notice. Stakeholder debates took place across Europe to discuss what was off limits. Clear signposts were required where the technology was in use, and products that used this type of surveillance technology were labelled accordingly. The nano tag was lost but this didn’t mean the technology was not in abundant use. The science was everywhere, but not the name. 2015 BBC documentary ‘Whatever happened to nanotechnology? ’is broadcast. The programme revisits 2006, the fears of the time and looks at developments of the past ten years. The programme takes viewers back to some of the more radical predictions from 2006, such as curing blindness. It becomes clear throughout the documentary that the technology has not developed as fast as was predicted by some in 2006. On the other hand, none of the disasters predicted have materialised either. So on the whole, the documentary concludes, we are better off, the ground work has been laid and the future looks brighter. Scenario 3 (intermediate) Small efficient fuel cells entered the market and replaced batteries in smaller electronic devices such as mobile phones and laptops. Progress in this area drove research in other areas of fuel cell research and led to advances in larger fuel cell technology for transport use. There were dramatic improvements in PV – experimental solar cells were operating at 30 per cent 46 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 efficiency. Prices began to drop. Rapid developments occurred with the first commercially available printable PV. Governments across Europe struggled to keep up with the rapid pace of technological change. There was a lack of defined regulation. However, products were seen to have widely applicable benefits, so there were few objections. European governments offered large subsidies to home-owners who invest in microgeneration. Printable PV was followed by spray-on solar. There was an increasing shortage in engineers and researchers resulting in an increase in salaries. There was a dramatic increase in the use of fuel cells in cars, at least ten years earlier than had been expected. Storage problems were solved by use of new composite materials and some houses were fitted with fuel cells as power sources. The entrepreneur, scientist and author of ‘The Microgeneration Revolution’ died under suspicious circumstances. Inevitably, conspiracy theories connected this to certain energy companies being left behind by the new technology. Many of the old energy giants lobbied hard against the decentralisation of energy production. Greenpeace produced a report on resource use, which highlighted the limits of platinum availability and concerns about the lack of recycling of nanomaterials. A Nobel prize was awarded to the team responsible for developing cheap, efficient spray-on solar cells. Robotics started to kick off due to small, cheap and highly efficient batteries. The growth in nano-enabled products led to concerns over resource use and pollution. The recycling issue had still not been resolved. The first major nanotechnology-related incident at a manufacturing plant highlighted the risks involved and forced a rethink from governments on regulation. There was a worrying skills shortage in Europe. The rapid spread of spray-on solar cells led to a worldwide rise in renewable energy production. For the first time there were signs that major reductions in CO2 emissions might be achievable. The importance and timing of these developments cannot be overstated as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had reached 400ppm. The religious right in the US scaled up its opposition to nanotechnology with a publication called ‘The End of God’s Children’, which questioned the religious implications of the advancing science of human modification. In 2015 the disruptive nature of the developments has become apparent as centralised energy production begins to fall dramatically. 2015 In 2015 the disruptive nature of the developments has become apparent as centralised energy production begins to fall dramatically. There is increasing unrest in countries that have no access to the technology and representatives are calling on governments and corporations to ensure wider distribution. 47 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 A.6 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Participants to the “Communication Outreach in nanotechnology –Developing innovative approaches for public engagement in FP7” workshop, Brussels, February 6th, 2007 Organiser: Matteo Bonazzi - European Commission Direction General Research (RTD) INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES Unit G.4 - Nanotechnologies & nanosciences Communication, Brussels, Belgium Facilitator: Jennifer Palumbo - Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza, Naples, Italy Participants and co-authors: Luigi Amodio – Director, Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza, Naples, Italy Andrea Bandelli - Private consultant, Amsterdam, The Netherlands M.J Buxo i Rey – Professor, Observatorio de Bioética y Derecho Parc Cientific de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Valentina Corato - Partner manager Association MQC2 - CNR Naples, Italy Dulce Ferreira - Fábrica Centro Ciência Viva de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal Nynke Etk Fokma - Moebius Consultancy, Dordrecht, Netherlands Catherine Franche - Executive Director, Ecsite (European Network of Science Centres and Museums,)Brussels, Belgium Dominique Grand – CEA (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique) –Grenoble, France Ulrich Kernbach - Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany Guglielmo Maglio - Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza –Naples, Italy Rosina Malagrida i Escalas – Head of Science Communication and Diffusion, Parc Científic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Keelin Murphy - Education & Outreach - Centre for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN), Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland Francesca Olivini - Educational Services and International Relations, Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia 'Leonardo da Vinci', Milano, Italy Ana Rita Claro Rodrigues -Ciência Viva- Agência Nacional para a Cultura Científica e Tecnológica, Lisboa,Portugal Helena Rodrigues - Fábrica Centro Ciência Viva de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal Roland Schaer - Director Sciences et Société, Cité des sciences et de l'industrie, Paris, France Elisabeth Schepers - Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany Monique Snippers - Program Assistant Frontiers Mesa+ Research Institute, Enschede, The Netherlands Stef Stayaert - Vlaams Instituut voor Wetenschappelijk en Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek, Flemish Rinie van Est -Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag, The Netherlands Paulo Velho - Ciência Viva- Agência Nacional para a Cultura Científica e Tecnológica, Lisboa, Portugal Patricia Verheyden – Manager of exhibits Technopolis, the Flemish Science Center, Mechelen, Belgium Rolf Vermeij - University of Twente, The Netherlands Jennifer Wong - Dana Centre Programmes Developer, Dana Centre, London, UK Maria Xanthoudaki, Educational Services and International Relations, Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia 'Leonardo da Vinci', Milano, Italy 48 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 A.7 OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY 1. What is Open Space Technology? Open Space Technology is a self-organizing practice that enables groups of any size to address complex, important issues and accomplish meaningful work. It releases the inherent creativity and leadership in people by inviting them to take responsibility for what they care about. Open Space establishes a marketplace of inquiry, where people offer topics of interest, reflect, learn and work together. It has been used all over the world in thousands of diverse applications. The Boeing Company has used it to improve the design of airplane doors. The Italian foreign ministry and an Italian NGO manager from the Dionysia International Center used it to bring 25 Israelis and 25 Palestinians to Rome for 3 days in June, 2002 to talk about themselves, their future, and the possibilities of peace. The essence of Open Space are four principles and one law: Whoever comes is the right people Whatever happens is the only thing that could have When it starts is the right time When it’s over, it’s over The Law of Two Feet, also known as the law of personal responsibility, states that if you’re neither contributing nor getting value where you are, use your two feet and go somewhere else. It also says to stand on your two feet to express what’s important to you. It is fundamentally an invitation for individuals to take responsibility for what they care about. We should note here that Open Space can only fail for two reasons: if people show up with no passion and/or if somebody tries to control the process in order to achieve some sort of predetermined outcome(s). And, the commitment to openness, passion and responsible selforganization begins with the invitation process itself. Here's how Harrison Owen, creator of Open Space Technology, answers the question: At the very least, Open Space is a fast, cheap, and simple way to better, more productive meetings. At a deeper level, it enables people to experience a very different quality of organization in which self managed work groups are the norm, leadership a constantly shared phenomenon, diversity becomes a resource to be used instead of a problem to be overcome, and personal empowerment a shared experience. It is also fun. In a word, the conditions are set for fundamental organizational change, indeed that change may already have occurred. By the end, groups face an interesting choice. They can do it again, they can do it better, or they can go back to their prior mode of behavior. Open Space is appropriate in situations where a major issue must be resolved, characterized by high levels of complexity, high levels of diversity (in terms of the people involved), the presence of potential or actual conflict, and with a decision time of yesterday. Open Space runs on two fundamentals: passion and responsibility. Passion engages the people in the room. Responsibility ensures things get done. A focusing theme or question provides the framework for the event. The art of the question lies in saying just enough to evoke attention, while leaving sufficient open space for the imagination to run wild. 49 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 2. Setting up a workshop Staff: facilitator, staff to help with logistics Participants and timeframe: between 5 and 2000 people meet for one or two days Venue: one room large enough to hold a circle (or concentric circles) of chairs seating all participants, plus other smaller rooms for group discussion Resources: enough chairs for everyone, not fixed to the ground; movable poster stands to post papers on; PCs and photocopiers; loose paper and markers; microphone (depending on room size); food and drink always available. 3. Phases of the Workshop Preparation - the focusing theme or question of the open space is selected and outlined briefly; - participants are invited to take part in the workshop through a short, open invitation which is issued well in advance of the gathering date. The invitation itself should be very simple, probably just a page or two, maybe a short email or postcard, which explains plainly what the central theme or question for the workshop is. It’s clearly not an invitation to complain or even "solve problems," but rather to co-create some dimension of the organization, the community, or the world that we all really want to be a part of. This doesn't mean that it denies or in any way minimizes the importance of existing problems, only that it really focuses attention on strengths and assets -- and invited people to work together to create more of them. The simple, clear, broad and open invitation process assures that the people who show up have real passion for the issue and signals to them that the best outcomes are theirs to create. A good invitation lets everyone know, even those who can't or won't actually attend, that this meeting is intended to go beyond suggestions, beyond recommendations, beyond rubber-stamping, beyond past expectations. This meeting is for real responsibility, real learning, real action on the issue(s) at hand. Even if the number of attendees had be limited, for financial or other concerns, this could and should be done in ways that don't limit the passion and possibility of the work. - the venue is prepared: all chairs are arranged in a circle surrounded by movable walls, with handwritten posters stating the four principles and one law of open space. Most of one wall is left blank under a banner that says, simply, "marketplace." Even if the circle has several concentric circles, the room is set, from the start, so that everyone can see and hear everyone else. The middle of the circle, even if it's very large, is empty and open. There are no tables or podiums, only perhaps a carpet with loose sheets of paper and markers on the floor. Opening space The facilitator welcomes participants, asking them to look at the people around them imagining that they are sitting in a circle of friends, colleagues and perhaps some strangers, too. The invitation was extended to a diverse group of stakeholders and clearly stated the parameters for work. And, to the greatest extent possible, everyone is participating voluntarily, because they have discovered that they have something to learn or contribute to the work at hand. The theme is restated and briefly explained, perhaps a short story of how we got here, with the reminder that everyone you now see in the circle is here because they care about some aspect of this theme -- and have chosen to be here, to learn from and contribute to the work at hand. The facilitator also explains that the big empty wall is, in fact, our agenda. He acknowledges that it is a giant empty space, but reassures us that it will, within the hour, be 50 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 filled with discussion topics related to the theme. He makes it very clear that all of these breakout session topics will be proposed by us, the people now sitting in the circle. While the reality of this responsibility sinks in, the Four Principles are explained. "Whoever comes is the right people" acknowledges that the only people really qualified or able to do great work on any issue are those who really care, and freely choose to be involved. "Whenever it starts is the right time" recognizes that spirit and creativity don't run on the clock, so while we're here, we'll all keep a vigilant watch for great ideas and new insights, which can happen at anytime. "Whatever happens is the only thing that could have" allows everyone to let go of the could haves, would haves and should haves, so that we can give our full attention to the reality of what is happening, is working, and is possible right now. And finally, "When it's over, it's over" acknowledges that you never know just how long it'll take to deal with a given issue, and reminds us that getting the work done is more important than sticking to an arbitrary schedule. Taken together, these principles say "work hard, pay attention, but be prepared to be surprised!" The one law is The Law of Two Feet. It says simply that you, and only you, know where you can learn and contribute the most to the work that must take place today. It demands that you use your two feet to go where you need to go and do what you need to do. If at any time today, you find that you are not learning or contributing, you have the right and the responsibility to move... find another breakout session, visit the food table, take a walk in the sunshine, make a phone call -- but DO NOT waste time. This simple rule makes everyone fully responsible for the quality of their own work and work experience. It creates bumblebees who buzz from session to session, cross-pollinating and connecting pieces of the work. It creates butterflies who may not join any formal sessions, choosing instead to float at the edges. They create the space for everyone to appreciate the energies and synergies unfolding in the work of the conference. Sometimes the most amazing solutions seem to come out of nowhere -- so that's where butterflies tend to look for them. Setting the agenda After a quick logistical review, the facilitator invites anyone who's ready to come to the center of the circle, grab a marker and a sheet of paper, and write down their burning question, passionate issue, or great idea. To the surprise of many, a number of people spring from their chairs and are quickly on all fours in the center of the circle, scribbling their offerings. As each one finishes, they read their issue(s) out loud. These aren't speeches; just simple announcements. "My name is _____, my issue is ______," and we're on to the next one, while they tape their sheet to the wall and assign it a place and a time (from a pre-arranged set of space/time choices). This is how even very large groups can create two or three days of agenda in just one hour. As the wall fills, those who were at first surprised, find words for their issue and grab a marker. And then, as fast as it started, it's done. Having done the impossible in the first hour, the energy level is pretty high now. The facilitator gives a few more instructions and the whole group moves to the wall and signs up for the sessions they want to attend. Minutes later, the first sessions start without any announcement or instructions, because everybody knows where they need to be. Discussion sessions Suddenly the large circle is many small circles, in the corners of the room or in separate breakout spaces, each working on some important part of the main theme. Every session has been proposed by someone who really cares about that item and has taken responsibility for making sure it gets addressed. In longer meetings, the convener is also responsible for recording the main points and conclusions reached in his or her session. As the first sessions finish, at roughly the scheduled time, the second sessions begin. If the work isn't finished, it continues or a sequel is scheduled. Some people have spent the entire 1 1/2-hour session on one topic; others have bumblebeed or butterflied around, connecting 51 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 different issues. Everything is moving -- people, ideas, resources, beliefs, relationships -- but it all revolves and relates to the intention stated in the invitation. This motion ebbs and flows, but the work continues, session after session. Announcements In multi-day meetings, everyone also assembles in the morning and evening for short "news" sessions, where things like new sessions, major breakthroughs, and dinner plans can be announced easily. Reports In some events, especially longer events, the proceedings are captured by computer. The person who convenes a session also takes responsibility for capturing the notes and typing them into the computer. The rule-of-thumb is that one day in Open Space will get you a lot of great discussion, two days will give you time to capture what happens in a typed proceedings document, and a third day (usually a half-day) will allow a more formal convergence to specific plans for immediate action. In some cases, smaller groups might create handwritten proceedings to be typed up after the event. With larger groups and longer meetings, where follow-up and follow-through is critical, the typed proceedings can be dumped into an intranet format where future meetings can be announced and progress reports added onto the original proceedings. Over time, these proceedings on an intranet system also make a powerful orientation and training resource, at both project and organizational levels. Close At the end of the time allotted to the group sessions, the facilitator reassembles everyone in the closing circle. Everyone in the room attests to the fact that, together, the group has done what most thought was impossible. The microphone is handed around the circle so that each person in turn is able to contribute their impression, give feedback, express thanks or say good-bye. Results - all of the most important issues are identified, explored and addressed; - new ideas, resources and people are gathered and connected to these issues; - discussion and proposals are documented in somewhere between 5 and 500 pages of notes and next steps; - strategic themes, clear priorities, immediate actions steps are established; - the information produced is distributed to a (re)energized and action-ready community of people; - the participants feel empowered to tell that story to the rest of the organization, community, or world, seeding cycles of invitation that will continue to pull people into places where they can maximize their own learning and contribution. Hailed for its utter simplicity -- and its power, Open Space starts with open-minded leadership, an issue that really matters, and an invitation to co-create something new and amazing. What happens in the meetings is high learning, high play and high productivity, but is never pre-determined. 52 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Authors Dr. Nynke Etk Fokma Dr. Luigi Amodio Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza Naples, Italy Moebius Consultancy Dordrecht, the Netherlands Dr. Catherine Franche Dr. Andrea Bandelli Private consultant Amsterdam, the Netherlands Ecsite Brussels, Belgium Dr. Maria Jesus Buxó Rey Observatorio de Bioética y Derecho Barcelona, Spain Dr. Dominique Grand CEA Grenoble, France Dr. Ana Rita Claro Rodrigues Ciência Viva- Agência Nacional para a Cultura Científica e Tecnológica Lissabon, Portugal Dr. Ulrich Kernbach Deutsches Museum Münich, Germany Dr. Valentina Corato Partner manager Association MQC2 – CNR Naples, Italy Dr. Rosina Malagrida i Escalas Cap de Comunicació i Difusió de la Ciencia Barcelona, Spain Dr. Dulce Ferreira Fábrica Centro Ciência Viva de Aveiro Aveiro, Portugal Dr. Guglielmo Maglio Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza Naples, Italy 53 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Ms. Keelin Murphy Education & Outreach, Center for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices, CRANN, Trinity College Dublin Dublin, Ireland Dr. Elisabeth Schepers Deutsches Museum Münich, Germany Dr. Monique Snippers Dr. Francesca Olivini Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia 'Leonardo da Vinci' Milano, Italy Mesa+ Research Institute University of Twente Enschede, the Netherlands Dr. Stef Stayaert Dr. Jennifer Palumbo Fondazione IDIS-Città della Scienza Naples, Italy Vlaams Instituut voor Wetenschappelijk en Technologisch Aspectenonderzoek Flemish Parliament, Belgium Dr. Rinie van Est Rathenau Instituut Den Haag, the Netherlands Dr. Helena Rorigues Fábrica Centro Ciência Viva de Aveiro Aveiro, Portugal Dr. Paulo Velho Ciência Viva- Agência Nacional para a Cultura Científica e Tecnológica Lissabon, Portugal Dr. Roland Schaer Cité des sciences et de l'industrie Paris, France Dr. Patricia Verheyden Technopolis - the Flemish Science Center Mechelen, Belgium 54 Communication outreach in Nanotechnology, Brussels, 6 th February 2007 Dr. Rolf Vermeij MESA+ Institute for Nanotechnology University of Twente Enschede, the Netherlands Dr. Maria Xanthoudaki Museo della Scienza e della Tecnologia 'Leonardo da Vinci' Milano, Italy Dr. Jennifer Wong Dana Centre London, United Kingdom 55
