Review of the
Australian Government ‘National
Enabling Technologies Strategy’
(NETS)
Public Awareness Community
Engagement program (PACE)
Executive summary
Prepared by Biotext, October 2012
C o n t e n ts
1
Overview of review results ................................................................................... 1
2
Review processes ................................................................................................... 2
3
4
2.1
NETS–PACE .............................................................................................. 2
2.2
The NETS–PACE review ........................................................................... 2
2.3
Assessment items........................................................................................ 4
2.4
Reviewers ................................................................................................... 4
Key review findings............................................................................................... 6
3.1
The materials and events ............................................................................ 6
3.2
Communication objectives ......................................................................... 6
3.3
Addressing risk ........................................................................................... 7
3.4
Reviewer responses .................................................................................... 8
3.5
STEP principles ........................................................................................ 10
3.6
Stakeholder Advisory Committee comments ........................................... 12
Recommendations for the future ....................................................................... 13
4.1
Reviewer recommendations ..................................................................... 13
4.2
Recommended principles from Gascoigne–Cronin.................................. 13
4.3
Recommendations from Faunce–Bruce ................................................... 14
4.4
Recommendations from the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner ........................................................................................... 14
1
O ve r vi ew o f r e vi ew r e s u l ts
The task of NETS–PACE is to inform the public and stakeholders about enabling
technologies such as nanotechnology and the ways they may be used now and in the
future; and to carry back to policy makers any concerns the public has, which may in turn
affect the way the new technologies are developed and regulated.
NETS–PACE has used a range of communications techniques to inform the public and
stakeholders and allow people to ask questions and express their views.
In 2011/12, a review of NETS-PACE materials and events was conducted, with
assessment by a review panel and input from other experts. The review covered materials
and events produced, conducted or sponsored by NETS–PACE from 2007–2011. The
review generally found that the communications have not always been effective or
balanced. They found that the facts presented in PACE materials were accurate, but that
in some cases the language and choice of topics lean towards the promotional. However,
reviewers also generally found that problems with balance have receded as the program
has matured. Similarly, reviewers found that early communications were not designed to
engage the public and stakeholders and there were limited avenues for open discussion
and feedback. Again, these issues have improved over the life of the program.
The review recommended that balance and transparency should be essential elements of
future NETS–PACE communications. To support this, it is important that there is clear
understanding of the purpose of communication (science promotion vs public and
stakeholder engagement). Because information and awareness materials ‘set the scene’
for engagement, it is important that neutral information is used throughout the entire
program. It is also important that risk is addressed openly and that full information is
provided regarding potential risks as well as potential benefits of any new technologies.
Finally, the review recommended that there must be are clear and effective avenues for
the public and stakeholders to provide feedback and to be able influence the future of
enabling technologies in Australia.
1
2
R e vi ew p r o c e s s e s
2.1
NETS–PACE
The National Enabling Technologies Strategy (NETS) was launched by the Australian
Government in February 2010 and is being implemented by the Department of Industry,
Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE). The strategy included
a Public Awareness and Community Engagement program (PACE), with the objective to
‘increase the Australian public’s awareness, knowledge and understanding of enabling
technologies, including the risks and benefits, to enable a more informed public debate,
and to gain an increased understanding of the public issues to feed into policy
development.’1
The strategy document includes the following section on engaging with the public:
The Strategy’s public awareness and community engagement program will increase
public understanding of enabling technologies and issues surrounding them, and
increase understanding of public concerns and aspirations by technology developers
and in policy formulation. The main elements of the program will be:
2.2

Community engagement — multiple channels will be utilised to provide
opportunities for diverse members of the public to engage in discussions on
enabling technologies, including proposed policy approaches designed to
improve the technologies’ management and regulation.

Public attitude research — qualitative and quantitative research will be used
to underpin activities and evaluate the success of the program.

Education — school resources will continue to be developed, supported by
teacher professional development and demonstrations, in both metropolitan
and regional areas.

Information exchange — to understand the information needs of different
groups, provide balanced and factual information in appropriate formats,
and seek feedback for improved information provision.
The NETS–PACE review
In April 2010, concerns with NETS–PACE publications and activities were raised by a
group of nongovernment organisations (NGOs) at a nanotechnology stakeholder forum
held by NETS-PACE. Their concern was that NETS–PACE public education and
communication materials and public events organised or supported by NETS–PACE do
not reflect an adequate diversity of views, adequate expression of critical views or
adequate participation of community groups and unions in public events and stakeholder
forums. They called for a review to be conducted.
In Jan 2011, at the inaugural meeting of the Stakeholder Advisory Council (SAC), the
proposal for an independent review was put to the SAC, who endorsed the proposal, and
the NETS–PACE program commissioned an independent review in 2011. The Terms of
Reference for the review, and the composition of the review panel were developed in
consultation between NETS-PACE and a sub-committee of the SAC.
The panel members selected were Mr Toss Gascoigne, a representative of the Australia
Science Communicators and Dr Karen Cronin, a representative of the Asia-Pacific
1
ibid
2
Science and Technology Studies Network. In addition, a representative of the Office of
the Australia Information Commissioner was invited to the panel, but being unable to
contribute fully to the review process, committed to providing comments on the final
report.
The purpose of the review was to:
•
undertake an independent assessment of the NETS–PACE or DIISRTE-initiated or
part-funded materials and engagement activities during 2007–11
•
develop key principles to guide the development of new events and materials.
The Terms Of Reference (TOR) for the review asked the reviewers to assess whether:
•
the materials embody the assumption or communicate the view that nanotechnology
development should be promoted by government
•
the full range of stakeholder views, including critical views, is reflected, including in
relation to issues that extend beyond toxicity risks (e.g. in relation to ethics, privacy,
energy demands of nanomaterials manufacture, military applications, etc)
•
the description of health and environment risks reflects accurately the current state of
the science
•
existing regulatory gaps are identified accurately, including where existing regulatory
triggers or labelling requirements may not differentiate between bulk and nano-forms
of a substance
•
comparable treatment and certainty of language is used to describe both fears as well
as hopes for nanotechnology’s positive and negative impacts on health, environment,
society and economy
The report from the review was delivered on April 2012. Within the report the review
panel noted that they could not address technical aspects of the TOR, specifically:
•
factual correctness
•
whether the descriptions of health and environment risks accurately reflects the
current state of the science
•
whether existing regulatory gaps are accurately identified, including where existing
regulatory triggers or labelling requirements may not differentiate between bulk and
nano-forms of a substance
•
curriculum relevance.
Additional assessments on these aspects were therefore undertaken of the materials by
Associate Professor Alex Bruce, Professor Thomas Faunce, Dr Karinne Ludlow,
Professor Joe Shapter, Associate Professor Paul Wright, and the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner. Comments on the Gascoigne–Cronin review were also
provided by the NETS Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
This document provides an executive summary of the comments from all reviewers.
3
2.3
Assessment items
In total, 22 items were assessed by the reviewers (see attachment A):
•
Public engagement activities
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Publications
–
–
–
–
–
•
New technologies for your changing future
Nanotechnology regulations: brochure
Take a closer look at the issues: Avant Card
Journey into the nano world: CSIRO fold up
Does size really matter?: Avant Card
Items raised by members of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2.4
NETS–PACE STEP framework project: multistakeholder process
Communicating science and risk through social media
What are the big issues about small technologies
Nanodialogues: engaging with the unengaged
2008 Social Inclusion and Community Engagement Workshop
Nanotechnology public forums
‘Space elevator’ and ‘Personal care products’: modules for high school teaching
from the Access Nano Program (2008)
Nanotechnology — working with the smallest things: July 2008
Nanotechnology and foods: fact sheet (2009)
Nanotechnologies in the workplace: fact sheet (2009)
Synthetic biology: ‘genome jenga’ postcard (2011)
Nanotechnologies teacher information (2010)
New technologies for a changing climate: brochure (2010)
Nanotech — overheated promises and hot air: TechNYou blog (2010)
Journey into the nano world: four-page brochure
Nanotechnology evaluation of the brochure.
Reviewers
The reviewers were:
•
Associate Professor Alex Bruce: College of Law, Australian National University
•
Dr Karen Cronin: Science Team Leader, Governance and Policy at Landcare
Research, New Zealand
•
Professor Thomas Faunce: Barrister and solicitor, ACT Supreme Court; Professor and
ARC Future Fellow, College of Law and College of Medicine, Biology and
Environment, Australian National University; medical practitioner
•
Mr Toss Gascoigne: President of the Public Communication of Science and
Technology Network; private science communications consultant
•
Dr Karinne Ludlow: Lawyer and academic, Faculty of Law, Monash University
•
Professor Joe Shapter: Professor of Nanotechnology; Dean of the School of Chemical
and Physical Sciences, Flinders University
•
Associate Professor Paul Wright: Coordinator of Nanosafe Australia; Head of the
Nanosafety Research Group, RMIT University
4
•
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (Jonathan Dobson, Director,
Corporate and Public Affairs, OAIC): The OAIC is an independent statutory authority
headed by the Australian Information Commissioner. The OAIC was established by
the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 and commenced operation on
1 November 2010. The OAIC aims to advance the development of consistent
workable information policy across all government agencies.
Members of the NETS Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), specifically
representatives of key NGOs, also provided comments on the initial Gascoigne–Cronin
review (see Section 3.6).
5
3
K e y r e vi e w f i n d i n g s
In this chapter, the source of the comments is noted in parentheses at the end of sections
or paragraphs.
3.1
The materials and events
The suite of materials and events covered NETS–PACE activities from 2007 to 2011. In
this time there has clearly been an attempt to use a wide range of science communication
approaches and delivery styles. This has included traditional methods such as fact sheets
and new approaches (e.g. social media and novel engagements with the public and
stakeholders). (Gascoigne–Cronin)
3.2
Communication objectives
A key issue that has emerged in this review is the lack of clarity around the strategic
communication objectives for NETS–PACE. This, in turn, has led to some contradictory
aims and methods, resulting in mixed messages and frustration among some key
stakeholders.
The approach to date has been shaped by policies originally laid down by the government
in the performance indicators for the PACE section of NETS2, including:
•
increasing awareness and understanding among the general public about enabling
technologies and their potential risks and benefits
•
promoting an informed public debate through improved awareness and understanding
of social and ethical issues regarding the use of enabling technologies
•
gaining better understanding of the public’s knowledge, concerns and aspirations
about enabling technologies
•
providing the public with timely updates on the government’s response to emerging
enabling technology issues
•
creating public awareness and understanding of Australian regulatory bodies and
practices concerning enabling technologies and related health and safety issues.
Based on these, NETS–PACE may have initially inclined more towards providing
information and increasing public understanding of enabling technologies, than towards
public engagement based on two-way communication, dialogue and deliberation.
Internationally, the trend is not only toward two-way communication but also toward
upstream public and stakeholder engagement to ensure more effective opportunities for
stakeholder input to policy goals and investment priorities, and to support participatory
and anticipatory technology assessment. There is a substantive international literature in
this field and in the panel’s view this could be drawn on more effectively for the future
design of events and materials for the NETS–PACE.
Some of the more recent deliverables — notably the multi-stakeholder engagement
process and the proposed STEP engagement framework — are closer to what would be
2
The Divisional Business Plan, as cited in Comments in Response to the Review of the NETS PACE programs,
p. 10
6
regarded as ‘best practice public engagement’ than the earlier items and are to be
commended. The principles outlined in the STEP framework (see Section 2.4) also now
provide a stronger alignment with internationally recognised best practice. (Gascoigne–
Cronin)
International best practice has developed in relation to efficient communication structures
concerning nanotechnology.3 These generally require:
•
balanced policy information that accurately identifies and communicates the benefits
and risks of nanotechnology
•
drafting of information at a level that is appropriate to the relevant stakeholder; in the
context of the NETS review, this is principally the general public
•
variation and adaptation of delivery according to both content and recipient
•
opportunities for stakeholder ‘feedback’ on nanotechnologies facilitating an ongoing
dialogue.
Australian research into effective communication of nanotechnology stresses the need for
information that is balanced, accurate, contextualised and engaging.4 (Faunce–Bruce)
‘Enabling’ technologies (including some biotech and nanotechnologies) raise a wide
range of technical, social, environmental, economic, legal and cultural issues. Hence a
multi-stakeholder perspective is appropriate for considering the potential uses and
impacts of such technologies. Approaches to public and stakeholder engagement,
therefore, need to take into account diverse perspectives and, preferably, allow for this
feedback to be taken into account in setting policy objectives, technology assessment and
decision-making. (Who?)
It would be good to see an open approach to exploring the issues of concerns to
stakeholders drawing on different disciplines and perspectives, including science
questions raised by both scientists and NGOs. In New Zealand, the Friends of the Earth
report (“Nanotech: Overheated promises and hot air”, 2010) has been cited by
nanoscientists in public discussions. In that spirit of open exploration, it would be
interesting to see what kind of open or collaborative science symposium format might be
designed and used for future engagement on nanotech. The citizen jury and talking
technology conference methods are a starting point, but some kind of shared inquisitorial
approach might be developed as an advance on these methods which would engage both
scientists and non-scientists more effectively. (Cronin)
3.3
Addressing risk
Enabling technologies and nanotechnology in particular are generating intense debate,
and there are substantive issues being discussed around risks and impacts of these
technologies.
In a science communication topic such as this, an over-reliance on information and
promotion strategies may be less effective than public and stakeholder engagement
3
See for example The Innovation Society, Nano-regulation: a multi stakeholder-dialogue approach towards a
sustainable regulatory framework for nanotechnologies and nanosciences. March 2006.
4
Monash University, Communicating with citizens about nanotechnologies: views of key stakeholders in
Australia, Final Report. July 2010.
7
strategies. If the underlying issues in the debate are not dealt with overtly, this can lead to
reduced trust and acceptance rather than increased public confidence.
It is well documented in the literature that traditional risk communication approaches —
predicated on anticipating resistance and shaping public opinion to prevent rejection of
new technologies — are less than effective where there is a fundamental risk dispute.
Newer approaches embrace the differences in a technology risk dispute and seek
opportunities to find common ground and thereby enhance technology innovation. In
particular, if the opportunity is taken early enough a stakeholder dialogue process can
highlight those technologies that will satisfy the value criteria of most stakeholders, and
avoid costly disputes and litigation downstream.5 In our view, much of the apparent
tension surrounding the design of some of the NETS–PACE materials and events may be
attributed to a lack of resolution of these underlying issues. Future progress in the
program may be enhanced if there is a stronger platform created for dialogical and
deliberative forms of engagement. (Gascoigne–Cronin)
Public and stakeholder engagement needs to be based on well-balanced and factual
information. However, with some novel science and technologies, there may be questions
about what is factually known and what is unknown or uncertain. If there is uncertainty,
this needs to be acknowledged and addressed openly in the process. (Cronin)
Both domestic and international studies indicate that consumers are excited and optimistic
about the potential benefits of nanotechnology; an optimism that does not appear to be
balanced against an accurate and informed awareness of the potential risks associated
with nanotechnology.6 The information asymmetry appears weighted toward optimism.
In these circumstances, an emphasis in documents on how regulatory systems should use
the precautionary principle (that regulation for public and environmental safety should
proceed even in the absence of complete scientific certainty about risks) is warranted.
(Faunce–Bruce)
3.4
Reviewer responses
•
Do the materials embody the assumption or communicate the view that
nanotechnology development should be promoted by government?
Clearly the government has a commitment to implementing NETS and promoting the
development and uptake of nanoscience and nanotechnology. This is apparent in the
materials reviewed. NETS includes a ‘Public Awareness and Engagement program …
to inform the public on enabling technologies’ 7 and acknowledges that ‘a balance
needs to be found that manages the risks and impacts while ensuring that the benefits
can be obtained’ (NETS, p.3). (Gascoigne–Cronin)
5
See for example Gregory R, et al (2001) Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: creating insights through
structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 20(3):415-42; and
Rauschmayer F, Wittmer H (2006) Evaluating deliberative and analytic methods for the resolution of
environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 23:108-122.
6
Market Attitude Research Services, Australian Community Attitudes about Nanotechnology – Trends 2005 to
2011, Final Report, August 2011.
7
www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/PublicAwarenessandEngagement/Pages/default.aspx
8
NETS–PACE is an opportunity for the public to learn about the potential advantages
and potential dangers in these new technologies, and for them in turn to shape policy
in relation to them. (Gascoigne)
•
Are the full range of stakeholder views, including critical views, reflected,
including in relation to issues that extend beyond toxicity risks (e.g. in relation to
ethics, privacy, energy demands of nanomaterials manufacture, military
applications, etc)
Some of the materials and events convey a wider range of stakeholder views than
others. Some of the event facilitators and presenters may have been seen by some
audiences as supporting a communication focus on ‘science promotion’ rather than on
‘deliberative dialogue’. Some of the items make only brief reference to scientific
research and public concerns about potential health and environment risks. There is
little in the materials about ethical, cultural or privacy issues. (Gascoigne–Cronin)
•
Are the materials factually correct? Do the descriptions of health and
environment risks accurately reflect the current state of the science?
The review panel is not qualified to comment on the current state of the science (see
Section 2.5), but was concerned that this information should be drawn on more
effectively in future communication materials and events. One way to deliberate on
this information may be to facilitate interactive learning seminars on nano risk science
and on the design of nano regulations, with science, policy and other interested
stakeholders. (Gascoigne–Cronin)
The facts are correct — though it is worth pointing out that all the risks are not
currently understood nor are the benefits. Additional information may assist in some
materials.
Risks are identified and discussed, though additional information may again be
sometimes needed. For example, it is important to point out some of the things that
affect risk — the worker in the nanotube factory is at a much greater risk than the
person who might someday ride the elevator. It is also worth pointing out that with
anything new there are risks and benefits — having the information to make
intelligent decisions is both important and difficult in nanotech due to the range of
materials under discussion. (Shapter)
The items appear to be factually correct, with emphasis on basic nanotechnology
information and a description of health and environmental risks that accurately
reflected the current state of the science at the time. Overall, there is an emphasis on
the concerns raised regarding the safety of certain nanoproducts, which is balanced by
the mention of various potential benefits. (Wright)
Generally speaking, each document was well written and researched. As such, they
are likely to achieve their stated objectives; particularly in stimulating public debate
and discussion. More detailed information on specific risks could have been included
in some of the materials, for example the mention of carbon nanotubes should be
balanced by reference to the risks of inhaling them, and the reference to sunscreens
could detail the risk to the skin itself from nanoparticles in sunscreens, or to people
with damaged skin. (Faunce–Bruce)
Some of the documents were written in 2009, before the introduction of the Work
Health and Safety Regulations 2011 and changes to the Code of Food Standards
Australia New Zealand. This means that some of the factual content is out of date and
9
should be updated. Some details of food safety regulation are incorrect. (Ludlow;
Faunce–Bruce)
•
Are existing regulatory gaps identified accurately, including where existing
regulatory triggers or labelling requirements may not differentiate between bulk
and nano-forms of a substance?
Again the review panel is not qualified to comment on the state of regulatory gaps or
labelling (see Section 2.5). This is a policy matter. As noted above, there may be
future opportunities for interactive public and stakeholder engagement in the review
and/or design of nano regulations. (Gascoigne–Cronin)
The general information documents have less specific information about the existing
regulatory gaps, and regulatory triggers or specific labelling requirements, although
this aspect is addressed in detail in some items. (Wright)
The gaps or otherwise are identified accurately, with more or less detail depending on
the material. (Shapter)
We recommend that the publications incorporate some mention of the Precautionary
Principle (see Section 2.3) as the underlying theme in nanoregulation. We believe that
this is an important idea to get across — that research and development of
nanotechnology does not have to stop simply because all of the public safety
information is not available. (Faunce–Bruce)
•
Is comparable treatment and certainty of language used to describe both fears as
well as hopes for nanotechnology’s positive and negative impacts on health,
environment, society and economy
The review panel found that the language and text (and process design) used in some
of the materials and events could have been more carefully balanced. This derives
from what we see as a lack of clarity about the strategic purpose of materials
(i.e. promotional information or neutral inputs to dialogic deliberation?) (Gascoigne–
Cronin)
•
Are the materials relevant to the Australian curriculum?
Some very good activities. Relevance to the curriculum depended on the material,
with some strongly linked to the curriculum and some less so. (Shapter)
This was a most interesting document containing a good mix of nanoscience materials
explained firstly for teachers and then pitched at school children. The sheer variety of
information and activities (from timelines to crosswords) is sure to appeal to most
levels of students. At least one of us hopes to use this material in assisting his young
nieces and nephews as they explore nanoscience. (Faunce–Bruce)
3.5
STEP principles
In 2011, a STEP framework for NETS–PACE including a set of principles was developed
through engagement wihth a Multistakeholder group. Gascoigne–Cronin also assessed the
materials in relation to the principles:
•
Commitment and integrity
10
The review found varying levels of commitment and integrity to the materials and
events produced under the program, including mechanisms for transparency and
accountability. (Gascoigne–Cronin)
•
Clarity of objectives and scope
The aims and objectives of the overall program appear to work against each other.
Clearer definitions of ‘awareness’, ‘information’, ‘engagement’ and ‘dialogue’ are
needed. ‘Information’ and ‘engagement’ can be done together, but in all instances
must be supported by neutral materials. An over-reliance on information and
promotion creates a challenge when there is clearly a dispute about risk. The STEP
process appeals as a process for working through these issues in future. (Gascoigne–
Cronin)
•
Inclusiveness
The activities to date have been reasonably inclusive, in terms of involving people
with a diversity of backgrounds and views, but some gaps are noted. (Gascoigne–
Cronin)
Government communication and engagement strategies need to draw on feedback from
the ‘average citizen’ as well as the ‘organised citizen’ as reflected in an NGO voice. Both
are legitimate expressions of social or consumer viewpoints. (Cronin)
•
Good process
The reviewers noted a steady rise in quality and balance in the materials and events
undertaken over the program. This reflects the pioneering nature of some of these
activities and the paucity of ‘best practice’ guidelines. (Gascoigne–Cronin)
•
Quality information / knowledge sharing
A range of information has been provided by the program, with a refreshing
willingness to experiment with a number of forms: postcards, newspaper inserts,
blogs, fact sheets etc. There was more emphasis on information provision than
knowledge sharing among multiple stakeholders in the earlier materials. (Gascoigne–
Cronin)
Materials for use in a formal program of public and stakeholder engagement need to
be based on a stance of independent facilitation with a neutral tone, and should
carefully address all elements in the issue under discussion. (Gascoigne–Cronin)
•
Dialogue and open discussion
The STEP process is a positive move to establishing an open and transparent
dialogue. Much appears to have been learnt from earlier attempts at generating open
discussion. (Gascoigne–Cronin)
•
Impact on decision-making
Engagement processes need to take place prior or at the same time as policies are
determined, rather than after policies have been put in place. This requires a
willingness by the policy-makers to listen to views emerging from public
consultations and to demonstrate how stakeholder input has been included.
(Gascoigne–Cronin)
11
Many of the communications have been delivered at a point where there was limited
opportunity to influence outcomes. This is a serious shortcoming.
The cited goals of the public awareness program are to ‘improve awareness and
information’ on nano issues and to support a ‘factual and balanced’ community
debate. The emphasis is on improving public confidence, diminishing public concerns
and removing barriers to implementation (e.g. ‘momentum can only happen once
trust’ is established).
At the same time, the program refers to ‘partnering’ and a ‘socially inclusive’
approach to developing products and policies. This is a very worthwhile aim, but it is
strategically misplaced given the timing and scope of the engagement process.
Raising expectations about inclusion when foundational decisions have already been
made may actually add to social distrust, resulting in a perverse outcome. This
diminishes the potential to create the ‘positive culture’ between stakeholders that is
being sought. (Gascoigne–Cronin)
3.6
Stakeholder Advisory Committee comments
The majority of comments from NGO members of the SAC on the results of the
Gascoigne–Cronin review emphasised their concern over the lack of balance in the
materials:
•
The lack of balance in language and the deficits in discussions of risk noted in the
Gascoigne–Cronin review are some of the major concerns of the NGOs. The current
materials are written to promote the technology and products. The TechNYou
website, for example, is described as a technology information service but basically
promotes nano and other technologies.
•
The NGOs concerns remain that the information seeking to increase public awareness
was not balanced. There is a definite role for fact sheets, not just public engagement
materials, but the information in such publications must be accurate and balanced.
•
Some events lacked balanced participation and representation, and stifled audience
participation. Others have been interesting and worthwhile. A common problem is
that the process is often positive, but everyone is left dissatisfied with the lack of clear
outcomes or decisions. In the NETS–PACE public engagement framework project the
organisers have sought to be inclusive and the process has improved.
•
The improvement over time of the materials and events in terms of balance may
reflect an increasing involvement of stakeholders.
12
4
Recommendations for the future
4.1
Reviewer recommendations
The initial independent Gascoigne–Cronin review was specifically requested to provide
recommendations for the future of NETS–PACE. Some other reviewers provided
recommendations as a specific part of their review, or as part of their general review
comments.
4.2
Recommended principles from Gascoigne–Cronin
The Gascoigne–Cronin review recommended key principles to be used in the
development of future PACE materials and events:
•
Address the science debates — all communication materials should recognise the
uncertainties and the potential risks of nanotechnology. The program should identify
standard messages for inclusion in all published material, and pre-test the wording on
a range of audiences and with members of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee.
(SAC strongly agreed with these recommendations.)
•
Clarity of purpose — materials and events need to have a clear sense of purpose and
process which both the participants and the organisers understand. Additionally, the
objectives for the overall program require greater clarity and transparency.
•
Early engagement —meaningful public and stakeholder consultation begins early in
the process of considering new technologies, and not after substantive policy
decisions have been made. The public will quickly lose trust if they see the
consultation is too late to allow any changes.
(SAC strongly agreed with these recommendations.)
•
Engaging experts —appropriate expertise should be engaged to help shape and devise
public and stakeholder engagement exercises. The expertise should be in public
engagement, not just in marketing and public relations. This would help processes
such as the moderation of meetings, creating opportunities for genuine dialogue,
framing of questions, and the wording of publications and event materials. It is
important that neutral facilitators and event managers are used when running multistakeholder events.
•
Pre-testing publications — all publications and event materials should be tested
before release, to ensure that the messages are clear and that the contents have an
appropriate balance between the potential possibilities and the potential problems.
Testing should be with target audiences as well as members of the Stakeholder
Advisory Committee.
•
Building in evaluation — build in evaluation at the time of program design as well as
at subsequent review points.
13
4.3
Recommendations from Faunce–Bruce
The Faunce–Bruce review also made a number of recommendations in its conclusions:
4.4
•
While there is an admirable amount of ‘further information’ contained in many
documents, there is a need to mention the names and websites of key regulatory
agencies (Therapeutic Goods Administration, National Industrial Chemicals
Notification and Assessment Scheme, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines
Authority, Food Standards Australia New Zealand) so that consumers can easily go to
them and find the recommended or further information they need;
•
Given recent regulatory developments, there is a need to update several documents so
that recent changes to TGA, NICNAS, APVMA and FSANZ guidelines are included.
•
Given its regulatory importance, there is a need to emphasise in many of the
documents the Precautionary Principle as a key underlying theme of Australian
Nanoregulation. Continuing with the theme of the precautionary principle, in many of
the documents the potential HSE (health, safety and the environment) issues are either
absent or lack balanced explanation.
•
As part of the broader discussion of nanoregulation, we emphasise the need for
balance in reporting benefits and risks associated with nanotechnology. For example,
perhaps students could be encouraged to consider the balancing of gains from
‘invisible’ sunscreens or odourless clothes against the environmental hazards if the
technology is rolled out globally. The various reports prepared by the Friends of the
Earth may provide a useful counter-perspective that could then be the subject of
valuable debate and critique.
•
In many of the documents an attempt is made to define nanomaterials by reference to
size comparisons. These definitions were inconsistent and in some cases confusing;
especially as the intended audience for most of the material is the general public
without detailed scientific knowledge. A standard, consistent and attention-catching
definition of nanoparticles is emphasised.
Recommendations from the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner
While the OAIC was limited in the comments it could provide to the review, it drew
DIISTRE’s attention to two OAIC principles8 that may assist in progressing the
objectives of NETS–PACE:
8
•
Principle 1: Open access to information — Open access to information should be a
default position for Australian government departments and agencies. Comments
within the Gascoigne–Cronin review suggest that NETS–PACE may benefit from
greater openness and transparency. Information sharing better enables the community
to contribute to policy formulation, assist government regulation, participate in
program administration, provide evidence to support decision-making and evaluate
service delivery performance.
•
Principle 2: Engaging the community — Agencies are required to engage the
community in policy design, service delivery, and in deciding what information to
publish. Agencies should welcome community feedback about the quality,
completeness, usefulness and accuracy of published information and employ Web 2.0
tools to support community consultation.
www.oaic.gov.au/infopolicy-portal/reports_infopolicy.html#PSI_principles
14
AT TAC H M E N T A - M AT E R I AL S AN D AC T I V I T I E S R E V I E W E D
Public Engagement Activities
Activity
Date and
location
organising
partners
participants or
consultation and
interests
Objective
Audience
Details –
Multi-stakeholder
Engagement
Process:
2009-2011
NETS-PACE initiated
and organised
Numerous partners from
key stakeholder groups,
including NGOs,
culminating in a workshop
with representatives of each
key stakeholder group
(industry, government,
scientists, social
researchers, public interest,
community and union
groups and general public)
To develop a bestpractice
framework for
community
engagement on
enabling
technologies that
was developed by,
and has buy-in
from, all key
stakeholders.
All key
stakeholders,
This process was designed to develop a
framework for best practice in community
engagement, through a series of stakeholder
workshops followed by a multi-stakeholder
event. NGO and community groups
workshop, 29 April 2010, Melbourne.
Researchers workshop: 01 Oct 2010,
Canberra. Industry Workshop, 26 November
2010, Melbourne. Government Workshop, 3
March 2011, Canberra. Public Workshop, 29
April 2011 in Tweed Heads. Multistakeholder forum, June 2011 in Canberra
Cost estimate: Approx. $30,000 incl. GST. in
2011-12 The objective of the workshop is to
develop a framework for community
engagement in decision making about
enabling technologies, and science and
technology generally. Well attended by all
participants including NGOs. NOTE: This
process won the ACT Section of the
International Association of of Public
Participation best practice awards in 2011.
See reports.
various
27 April 2011,
Brisbane
A conference on
science
communications was
Initiated by NETSPACE. Partner
organisation - Media
140.
- researchers
- industry
- NGOs and
community
interest groups
- social scientists
Interests were diverse but
crossed the spread of
stakeholder groups.
Communicating
science and risk
through social
media
- Government
- the general
public
Friends of the Earth, Griffith
Uni, Cosmos magazine,
social media commentator.
To debate issues
related to using
social media to
communicate
about science and
risk
Two NGO representatives
were invited onto the panel
of five people, and given a
free reign in how to address
1
Science
communicators.
In the end Media 140 ran the conference and
NETS-PACE supported a panel session on
web 2.0 and new technologies. Of 5
panellists two represented, or were closely
aligned with Friends of the Earth.{ Video of
sessions http://vimeo.com/channels/203345)
Activity
Date and
location
organising
partners
participants or
consultation and
interests
Objective
Audience
Details –
To raise and
discuss issues
related to the
development of a
health related
nanotechnology,
with diverse
voices including a
panel of the
public. In
particular to allow
members of the
public to hear
more from
technology
developers and for
technology
developers to hear
more from
members of the
public.
ICONN
conference
attendees and the
general public
attended.
Held as a hypothetical to attract both ICONN
Conference attendees and the general public,
with a panel of experts to discuss issues
relating to nano-medicines, including
research and development,
commercialisation and ethics and risks, and
to see how a public panel, recruited to take
parts, responded to these issues. The
hypothetical centred around a cancer
diagnostic taken by mouth. (see report)
the topic.
What are the big
Issues about small
technologies
Feb-10
International
Conference of
Nanosciences
and
Nanotechnolog
y- Sydney
Initiated by NETSPACE
Scientist: Professor Matt
Trau, AIBN, UQ;
Regulation: Professor Brian
Priestly, Director, Australian
Centre for Human Health
Risk Assessment
(ACHHRA) at Monash
University;
Commercialisation: Dr
Stuart Hazell, Former CEO
of PanBio; Consumer rep:
Ms Tricia Greenway,
Consumer Health Forum,
Discussants: Dr Kristin
Alford, Bridge8 and
Professor Thomas (Tom)
Faunce, ANU; Public panel
of six citizens.
The concept was developed
by NETS-PACE, but sought
input from a breadth of
voices including those
critical, which included two
discussants to challenge
the expert panel – and a
panel of the general public.
2
Activity
Date and
location
organising
partners
participants or
consultation and
interests
Objective
Audience
Details –
Nanodialogues engaging with the
unengaged
Sept-Octo
2009
Initiated by NETSPACE
Flinders University,
Wollongong University
To better
understand the
attitudes of those
members of the
public who are
unengaged on
new technology
issues
Unengaged
members of the
public.
Focus group discussions with unengaged
members of the public, to see what
discussions about nanotechnology issues
they would have, and what impact dialogue
with a scientist would have on them. To date,
five discussion groups have been held
(Adelaide Sept 2009, Melbourne Oct 2009,
Wollongong Oct 2009, Melbourne April 2010,
and Brisbane June 2010 In Brisbane, focus
groups involved unengaged and engaged
groups for comparison (See report on the
events)
To discuss
different
approaches and to
develop key
principles for
community
engagement on
nanotechnology.
All key
stakeholders,
The event sought to bring key stakeholders
together. Indsutry, government, researchers,
NGOs and the public and social scientists to
map out better community engagement
practices. Some NGOs, although invited,
chose not to attend. (See report on the event)
Wollongong,
Adelaide,
Melbourne,
Brisbane
2008 Social
Inclusion and
Community
Engagement
Workshop
Dec-08
Canberra
Wollongong University had
more steerage from ethicist
Professor Susan Dodds
than the other two groups
had, which were more freeflow in their approach.
Initiated by NETSPACE
With stakeholders from
Industry, Govt, Researchers
and NGOs.
The concept was developed
by NETS-PACE and the
consultants commissioned
to undertake the workshop,
based upon International
Association of Public
Participation principles and
was modified after
discussion with various
interest groups including
NGOs.
- Government
- researchers
- industry
- NGOs and
community
interest groups
- social scientists
- the general
public
3
Activity
Date and
location
organising
partners
participants or
consultation and
interests
Objective
Audience
Details –
Nanotechnology
public forums
2007-2008
Initiated by NETSPACE
Australian Office of
Nanotechnology (Precursor
to NETS-PACE) Staff and
stakeholders from a wide
range of organisations,
including CSIRO scientists,
ARC Federation Fellows,
university Ph.D.s and
professors working in nano
science and ethics,
government departmental
representatives on
occupational health and
safety matters (OH&S) and
representatives from the
Friends of the Earth and the
National Measurement
Institute.
To raise
awareness of
issues related to
nanotechnology,
to allow for a
diversity of voices
to discuss these
issues and to
allow interaction
and discussion
with the general
public.
Interested
members of the
general publics
Free public forums on nanotechnology were
held in all capital cities around Australia,
seeking to raise information, allow for both
sides of the debate to be discussed and allow
for the public to engage with experts and ask
questions of them. Industry representation
was excluded but NGO representation was
included. Each panel sought speakers who
could take widely across issues related to
nanotechnology All talks are available on
website and on DVDs (See evaluation
report).
Aust wide:
Darwin, Nov
2007;
Brisbane, Nov
2007;
Adelaide, May
2008; Sydney
April 2008;
Hobart June
2008; Perth
June 2008.
The concept was developed
solely by the Australian
Office of Nanotechnology
(the predecessor to NETSPACE)
4
Publications
Activity
Date and
location
organising
partners
participants or
consultation and
interests
Objective
Audience
Details –
New Technologies
for your Changing
Future
Aug-11
Wide across the
portfolio and state
governments
Wide across the portfolio
and Mins offices and those
providing input to the
publication.
To raise
awareness of the
types of new
technologies that
are being
developed that
people in rural
communities can
use to adapt to a
changing climate.
To profile the
breadth of
research across
the Innovation
portfolio. To
change the debate
on climate change
to incorporate
more positive
stories.
Rural communities
around Australia
via readership of
the major rural
publications in
each state in
Australia.
Produced as a rural insert to major rural
publications. Distribution fo 250,000.
Developed in conjunction with the Minister's
office and broad cross-portfolio input and coordination. Aims Raise awareness of the
impact of enabling technologies and how
people may encounter them in their lives, To
increase interest in the career directions that
studying science can take you Change the
conversations people have about Science and
Technology, Tell Australia’s brilliant science
stories, Reinforce the role of Innovation in
people’s lives, and Inspire the next generation
of scientists and innovators. Comments
included from Friends of the Earth, and the
Biological Farmers (See sample)
Nanotechnology
Regulations
Brochure
Early 2011
All regulators
Focus group tested.
To provide a
simple over view
of regulatory
issues relating to
nanotechnology.
General public
with an interest in
nanotechnology
safety and
regulation.
To develop a brochure that covers the
breadth of issues relating to nanotechnology
regulation and who the key regulators are.
Focus group tested. (See report)
Take a closer look
at the issues
Avant Card
2010
NETS-PACE initiated
Across partner agencies
To raise
awareness of
nanotechnology
and the issues
surrounding it, via
examples of
applications.
General public
with an interest in
new technologies.
To produce a novel avant card with
information on enabling technologies that
would steer those with more interest towards
TechNyou (See sample and evaluation report)
Australia wide.
250,000
printed
Aust wide
Australia wide
distribution of
60,000
5
Activity
Date and
location
organising
partners
participants or
consultation and
interests
Objective
Audience
Details –
Journey into the
Nano world - csiro
fold up
2010
developed in
conjunction with
CSIRO
CSIRO
To raise
awareness of
nanotechnology
scale and
applications
through a novel
printing device.
General public
with an interest in
new technologies
A folding card to demonstrate the scale of
nanotechnology and different uses at different
scales. (See sample)
Nanotechnology
Avant Card Does
size matter
2009
NETS-PACE initiated
Across partner agencies
To gauge public
interest in learning
more about
nanotechnology
issues.
General public
with an interest in
nanotechnology
issues.
The purpose was to provide basic information
about nanotechnology including risk and
regulations (See sample)
Australia wide.
3,000 printed
Australia wide
Materials Nominated by NGOs
Activity
Date and
location
organising
partners
participants or
consultation and
interests
Objective
Audience
Details –
Nanotechnology
and foods” fact
sheet
2009
NETS-PACE initiated
FSANZ consulted in the
writing.
To raise general
awareness of
nanotechnology
issues
General public
with an interest in
nanotechnology
issues
One of the first nanotechnology fact sheets
developed by NETS-PACE, concentrating on
key issues.
“Nanotechnologie
s in the
workplace” fact
sheet
2009
NETS-PACE initiated
SafeWork Australia
consulted in the writing
To raise general
awareness of
nanotechnology
issues
General public
with an interest in
nanotechnology
issues
One of the first nanotechnology fact sheets
developed by NETS-PACE, concentrating on
key issues.
Australia wide
Australia wide
6
Activity
Date and
location
organising
partners
participants or
consultation and
interests
Objective
Audience
Details –
Nanotechnology –
working with the
smallest things
2008
NETS-PACE initiated
Several government
agencies consulted in the
writing.
To raise general
awareness of
nanotechnology
issues
General public
with an interest in
nanotechnology
issues
This was the very first nanotechnology fact
sheet produced by NETS-PACE as a broad
overview.
New Technologies
for a changing
climate” brochure
2010
CSIRO and Dept of Climate
Change and individual
companies and agencies
listed in the booklet.
To reframe the
negative stories
about climate
change and show
there were
positive outcomes
as well
General public
Cross collaboration across several agencies.
Australia wide
DIISR, CSIRO and
Dept of Climate
Change.
”Nanotechnologie
s Teacher
Information”
CSIRO/DIISR
2010
Cosmos Magazine
Done by COSMOS.
To provide
teacher
information on
nanotechnology
and its
applications
Science Teachers
Publication produced by COSMOS magazine
for teachers, collaboratieve funding sought
from NETS-PACE
The ‘space
elevator” and
“personal care
products” modules
for high school
teaching from the
Access Nano
Program
2008
Australia wide
Developed by St
Helena’s High School,
Victoria.
Done by St Helena’s
To provide an
education module
as a part of the
larger education
resource on
nanotechnology
Science Teachers
The original module was developed by St
Helena’s High School in Victoria, with the
developing teacher winning a Prime Minster’s
Science Prize for the resource. NETS-PACE
collaborated with the school to make a
national resource for use in other states,
largely using the same material. This has now
been superseded by the TechNyou Education
Resource.
Fold out model of
a buckyball,
undated,
Australia wide
ARC Centre for
Excellence for
Functional
Nanomaterials and
the ANA –
Done by the ANA and ARC
Centre for Excellence
To provide
information about
nanotechnology in
a novel way.
General public
This was produced by the ARC Centre for
Excellence for Functional Nanomaterials and
the ANA – with funding support sought from
DIISR.
Australia wide
7