Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of the Advisory Group on the Public Dialogue
to Understand the Perceptions of Specific Applications of
Nanotechnologies
Date: 17th December 2014
1.
Welcome, Introductions and Project Overview
1.1
The Chairman welcomed all attendees to the meeting (see attendance list in Annex
A). Advisory Group members and the project management team introduced
themselves outlining their role and organisation.
1.2
The lack of NGOs able to attend advisory group meetings or the Stakeholder
Workshop was noted. The advisory group decided that to address this issue a
teleconference could be used in place of a face-to-face meeting.
1.3
Members approved the minutes from the previous advisory group meeting on
November 20th, 2014. Request that the first line of the minutes should be changed
to: “There are ongoing discussions in Europe about Nanotechnology regarding
transparency and reporting and regulatory reform”. Once this has been updated,
OPM Group will send the final minutes to be published on the Sciencewise website.
Terms and Conditions were also approved. Defra agreed that expenses for both
travel and subsistence can be claimed for reimbursement.
2.
Project Update
2.1
OPM Group provided members with an update on project developments since the
last advisory group meeting, this included the revised timeline for the public
workshops now to be held on the 28th February, 14th March, and the 28th March.
Presentation Slides are available in Annex B.
2.2
OPM Group discussed with members the stakeholder workshop and the summary
report which will be written outlining the key points and messages that have come
out of recent interactions from stakeholders (Nano Supply Chain Forum and Tech
UK), as well as the findings from facilitators at the stakeholder workshop which was
held on December 11th, 2014. The summary report is expected to be drafted ready
for advisory group review and sign-off during the week commencing January 19th,
2015.
2.3
There was recognition that meetings with stakeholders so far had been industry
focused. The main considerations from these meetings were focused on the ability
to engage with the public comprehensively on nanotechnology and the concern that
the public dialogue could result in changes around regulation and other factors that
would affect industry. The advisory group agreed that there is a value in using future
stakeholder interviews to gather a broad range of perspectives.
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
1
OPM GROUP
2.4
Discussion of the key dates in the upcoming months and when information will be
sent to group members for consideration of the stimulus materials and case studies.
It was suggested that the next advisory group meeting will be held at the end of
January or early February, and the project management team will send approximate
dates in advance that these materials will be available for review so members are
able to plan time for their consideration.
2.5
The project management team and members discussed the use and timing of
stakeholder interviews. The project management team expressed interest in using
the remaining interviews to speak with NGOs to gather a broad perspective and to
speak with experts in the chosen specific case study areas. The first two
stakeholder interviews with the Nano Supply Chain Forum and Tech UK were
meetings that presented an opportunity to engage with a wide range of industry
perspectives. The remaining eight interviews will be delivered 1:1 using a semistructured discussion guide approved by the advisory group. Interviews will be
around 20-30 minutes. The stakeholder interviews are to take place in January and
February, before the first public workshop.
2.6
There was a suggestion that stakeholder interviews should include people who
have been involved in nanotechnology dialogue projects such as the Nano
Engagement Group.
3.
Stakeholder Workshop Overview and Initial Findings
3.1
OPM Group gave an overview of the stakeholder workshop which happened on
the December 11th, 2014. Some key points and brief findings were discussed (see
Annex B for presentation slides). Many stakeholders believed that the explanation
of nanotechnology should be given as a concept not as a definition. Members
discussed including a timeline and history of nanotechnology which could reference
other public dialogue reports and research. Members and the project management
team are to write this timeline. There was a brief debate about keeping this timeline
straight-forward to what we know and not explaining the concept of grey goo. There
was a general consensus that we do not want to reinvent the wheel and should look
at materials already prepared for other public dialogue projects on nanotechnology,
including the Annual Nano Safety for Success Dialogue: Building Trust in
Nanotechnologies. It would also be useful to look to findings from the European
Commission’s project on nanotechnology to help with framing the issues and
debates.
3.2
Discussion about increased stakeholder interest following the workshop with many
offerings of advice and expertise in developing case studies and other informative
material. Suggestion that stakeholders could help create a nanotechnology
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
2
OPM GROUP
factsheet that could be used as materials for participants or for facilitators at the
public workshop.
3.3
To ensure the full debate is captured it was suggested that NGOs could be included
in the Public Dialogue events through Skype or vox pops,
allowing for a range of
perspectives in the stimulus material. It was suggested that experts who attended
the Stakeholder Workshop, such as Vicki Stone, would be useful to contact for
clarity on key concepts including processes and regulation; risks and hazards, and
exposure.
3.4
The breadth of applications needs to be shown in the introduction to nano,
especially in relation to its medical and food applications. At the workshop
stakeholders, raised these areas as a key omission in case studies. There was a
discussion into the need to provide answers about why certain applications haven’t
been chosen. One suggestion was to clearly explain why certain applications had
been chosen as part of the introduction at the public dialogue event as they have
policy hooks and are not yet being explored by other groups.
3.5
There was a discussion about the definitions of nanotechnology. Stakeholders had
raised that focusing more on the conceptualisation of nanotechnology was more
important than a definition.
4.
Review of Case Studies
4.1
OPM Group provided a brief explanation of the Sciencewise guiding principles,
noting the importance of having well-understood objectives, a clear route for outputs
to inform policy, and experts to be involved in the deliberations, rather than simply
information-givers.
4.2
Case study information templates will be updated following the stakeholder
workshop to include information, opinions and comments from stakeholders.
Specific stakeholders for each of the four applications will be contacted to review
the templates before being signed off in late January by the advisory group.
Following the information being signed off, OPM Group will develop the final case
study templates, which will again be reviewed and signed off by advisory group
members.
4.3
Case studies and other stimulus materials will be internally piloted before the public
dialogue events to ensure all material is accessible
and clear to people with
limited knowledge in the field. The case studies will also be checked by an expert
on risk psychology.
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
3
OPM GROUP
4.4
Discussion that case studies need to be a rounded set of information, both technical
and dialogue. The case studies should discuss nanotechnology in the wider context
such as the advantages and disadvantages of not using nanotechnology. Risk
assessment also needs to be discussed within the case studies. Case studies
should address worldwide regulation of different applications – part of the dialogue
is to get people to ask why products are regulated differently.
5.
Review of Stimulus Material
5.1
OPM group will work with an associate to develop creative stimulus materials for the
public workshops. There was a discussion into how to use the creative material to
optimise results and stimulate discussions at the public dialogue workshops. An
idea that arose at the stakeholder workshop was to have an animation to set the
context and connect the conversation about nanotechnology, an example of this
could be an animation showing how many times people come into contact with
nanotechnology every day.
5.2
It was noted in terms of stimulus materials that it would be helpful draw on materials
already developed for other events, some of these materials may be relevant for the
public workshops. The group decided that stimulus materials would be more
efficient if used for each case study rather than a general view of nanotechnology.
5.3
A discussion from members about using a ‘click-through’ animation or to use a selfdiscovery process where laptops and a list of websites could be provided to
participants. It was decided that a list of resources and websites should be given to
participants anyway for them to take home, and for the OPM group to ask
stakeholders for particular websites that will be useful for participants.
5.4
Discussion about how public workshops could be formed, and whether preworkshop questionnaires should be used. The first stage is about trust and showing
participants that the workshop is an environment where people can ask whatever
questions they would like. Questions arose about how to open discussions at the
first public workshop and whether it should be about technology in general, as there
is a worry that respondents will feel they have to answer questions on
nanotechnology. An ethical issue was brought up about how much information
about the project should be told to the participants beforehand. OPM Group were
requested to change the aims of the first public workshop to discuss “technology
and society” to avoid it being too technical. There should also be a conversation
about the participants’ attitudes to large societal risk and personal risk following a
general conversation about hazard and risk.
5.5
OPM Group spoke about how to methods of engaging the public in dialogue
including a ‘carousal walk round’; self-facilitated sessions; interactive learning and
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
4
OPM GROUP
questioning (making sure participants know they are in control about how to move
discussions along). A suggestion was made to have experts available to take a
phone call if issues come up at the public workshop that facilitators and other
experts in the room are unable to answer. It is also important to get expertise
around the tables as part of the conversation at the workshops.
5.6
Discussion about the recruitment process and that along with a representative
sample of the public there should be a sample of attitudes towards technology and
risk in the recruitment questionnaire. The public workshop should be described as
“society and technology” in the recruitment process to minimise bias.
5.7
A conversation was had about having a site visit to the University of Birmingham’s
lab and for OPM Group to research the logistics of this happening.
6.
Next Steps/AOB
6.1
A teleconference was suggested; however members felt that looking at materials
could be difficult this way. A few dates in late January/early February are to be
suggested and a Doodle poll is to be created for people to indicate their availability.
7.
Summary of Actions
1. First line of the previous minutes to be changed to: “There are ongoing
discussions in Europe about Nanotechnology regarding transparency and
reporting and regulatory reform”. OPM group to change and to send to Defra to
post on the Sciencewise website.
2. The summary report and findings from the Nano Supply Chain Forum, Tech UK
and the stakeholder workshop are expected to be drafted ready for advisory
group review and sign-off during the week commencing January 19th 2015.
3. Advisory group members and the project management team are to put together
a history and timeline of nanotechnology for the Public Dialogue events. This will
be used as part of the stimulus materials.
4. OPM group to approach stakeholders from the workshop who offered their
advice and expertise in developing case studies and other informative material.
To ask interested stakeholders to write a nanotechnology factsheet.
5. OPM group to contact NGOs about being involved in the Public Dialogue events
through Skype of vox pops.
6. OPM group to update the case study information templates following the
stakeholder workshop. Specific stakeholders for each of the four applications will
be contacted to review these templates. This is to be signed off in mid/late
January by the advisory group.
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
5
OPM GROUP
7. OPM group will then develop the final case studies in each application area,
following the initial review; afterwards the advisory group members will be given
the case studies for final sign-off by end of Jan.
8. OPM group to internally pilot the case studies and other stimulus materials
before the Public Dialogue events. The case studies will also be given to an
expert on risk psychology.
9. OPM group to contact their associate to develop creative stimulus materials for
the public workshops on the specific chosen applications of nanotechnology.
10. Advisory Group to provide input for OPM Group on particular websites/materials
that will be useful for participants.
11. OPM group to change the aims of the first public workshop to discuss
“technology and society” to avoid it being too technical.
12. OPM group to research the logistics of having a site visit to the University of
Birmingham’s lab.
13. Doodle poll is to be created for people to indicate their availability for the next
advisory group meeting. This meeting is suggested to happen in late
January/early February.
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
6
OPM GROUP
Annex A – List of Attendees
Advisory Group Members
1. Nick Pidgeon (Chairman), Cardiff University;
2. Roger Pullin, Chemical Industries Association;
3. Linda Crane, British Retail Consortium;
4. Barry Park, GBP Consulting;
5. Terry Wilkins, Nanomanufacturing Institute, Leeds University;
6. Patrice Mongelard, Defra;
7. Phil Townsend, Marks & Spencer;
8. David Santillo, Greenpeace;
Project Management Team
1. Diane Beddoes, OPM Group;
2. Caitilin McMillan, OPM Group;
3. Zoey Litchfield, OPM Group
4. Steve Morris, Defra;
5. Kieron Stanley, Defra;
6. Steve Morgan, Defra;
7. Anna MacGillivray, Ursus Consulting (Evaluator);
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
7
OPM GROUP
Annex B – Presentation
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
8
OPM GROUP
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
9
OPM GROUP
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
10
OPM GROUP
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
11
OPM GROUP
CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC
12