The document discusses perspectives on public engagement with nanotechnology from industry, government, and researchers. It notes that while awareness of nanotech remains low, public attitudes are generally positive. However, concerns focus less on direct health and environmental risks and more on issues of naturalness, access, trust, and transparency. The document contrasts a "public as risk" view that sees public as irrational and in need of reassurance, with research finding public worries more about social and political issues. It argues for early, ongoing deliberative engagement to build resilient innovation.

1. Is it all about risk?
Learning the right lessons
from GM for nanofoods
Dr Chris Groves
External Associate
BRASS, Cardiff University, UK
grovesc1@cf.ac.uk
Image from Friends of the Earth

3. Nano-risk: a UK government view
 UK Nanotech Strategy
stressed management of
risks over support for
benefits
 Must ensure the public is
 “informed and
confident about
nanotechnologies” (p.
2)
 “reassured that
products on the
market are safe for
them to buy” (p. 9)

4. Industry views
Journal of Business Ethics (2011) © Springer
101: 525-552 2011
On the public:
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7
“But of course public will
always take the negatives On engagement::
as more important, “I mean mobile phones is a great example
obviously. Because their where there was a potential risk of
own safety is what matters electromagnetic radiation and so on, at the
most for them.” end of the day people discounted that risk
Source #9 because they wanted a mobile phone.”
Source #7
On the media:: “I’m a cynic I'm afraid on this, because I've
been in the GM food industry. Companies
“And I guess you always
can shout all they like about how wonderful
get journalists who
their products are. At the end of the day it
basically, maybe do half
comes to, to you know, people putting their
a job and just report on
hands in their pockets and pulling out and
all the dreadful things
buying the product.”
that could potentially Source #5
happen.”
Source #13

5. Who will put their „head over the
parapet‟?
Representative of a food industry body:
“It is very difficult for them to say anything. If they
don't say anything then people will think they are
doing it anyway and if they say well we are not going
to involve ourselves in this nanotechnology thing then
I don't believe that. With all these benefits of course
they are looking at it. [...]”
“I have companies that do not want us to use the
word nano, they are happy to join the focus group,
they are happy to join in things, but they just say “take
the word nano out, don't use it at all!”’
Source #6

6. Reducing the deficit
 Classic deficit model of  Kearnes and Wynne
science communication (2007)1: a model of
 Public is scientifically
affective deficit
ignorant  Public has lost trust in
science and technology
 Ignorance breeds fear of
the unknown  Information does not
affect emotion
 must educate public
 must appeal directly
 …but is the public
to emotion
educable?
(“confidence”,
“enthusiasm”)
1. Kearnes, M. and B. Wynne (2007). "On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of
enthusiasm." Nanoethics 1: 131-142.

7. “We believe everyone
should be a confident
consumer of science
and technology” (p.
27)”

8. Reputational risk
 Contemporary salience of
reputational risk
 Regulators need to be seen
to be precautionary
 Businesses need to „keep
their heads down‟
 Frames „stakeholders as
sources of threat to
legitimacy‟
 Organisations „may be
over-responsive to public
concerns‟

9. Theoretical support
 Cognitive science view of
cognitive biases
 Public lacks
understanding of risk and
chance
 NGOs
 and/or governments
 and/or corporations
 and/or media
may encourage
overreaction to some risks

10. Lessons learnt from GM?
 A new deficit model
 The public is a risk (to reputation, to
innovation) & deep irrationality is the root
cause
 Organisations need to encourage positive
affect, thus protecting reputations
 Governments: act to restore „confidence‟, „be
seen to be precautionary‟
 Companies: create exciting products and build
markets on enthusiasm

11. The wrong lessons?

12. Learning other lessons
“ [...] we have learnt that it is
necessary with major technologies to
ensure that the debate takes place at
an early stage, as new areas emerge
in the scientific and technological
development process. This involves
engaging with the public and
understanding their aspirations
and concerns around science and
new technologies.”
UK Government (2005), Response to the
RS/RAEng report, p. 3

13. Recent research
2007
2008
2011

14. So what worries “the public”?
Four main areas of concern
1. naturalness: with respect to “Contrary to what scientists tend
e.g. food uses. to worry about, public fears about
technology risks are less about
2. access: will benefits be fairly risks directly attributable to a
distributed? technology than the social and
3. trust: will any unanticipated regulatory context in which
they are embedded.”
risks be handled responsibly?
Cobb, M. D. and Macoubrie, J. 2004.
Who is responsible?
Public perceptions about nanotechnology:
4. transparency: can experts be risks, benefits, and trust.
Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4), pp.
trusted to admit the limits of 395-405.
their knowledge about
potential hazards?

15. In a wider context...
 Two key conclusions from a broad range of research1
 Awareness of nanotech remains low
 Nonetheless, attitudes generally positive or neutral across a
range of countries (USA, UK, EU, Japan, Korea)
 Where nano-concerns exist, they are not
primarily about health and environmental risk
 Instead, are rooted in social and political
context (lack of trust in business, worries
about transparency, etc.)
1 See e.g.
 Evidence from other technology Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J. &
Veltri, G. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural
controversies support for technological innovation in
Europe and the United States. Public
 GM, nuclear power, BSE etc. (Brian Wynne, Understanding of Science 14, 81–90 (2005).
Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera,
Sheila Jasanoff) J. & Turner, S. What drives public
acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature
Nanotechnology. 1, 153–155 (2006).

16. Contrasting lessons, contrasting
assumptions
“Public as risk” “Participatory publics”
Defensive Early/ongoing
reputational risk deliberative
management engagement
 Irrationality – only „knee-  Individuals already engaged
jerk‟ responses with technology – implicitly
 Isolated consumers deliberative
 Media as sole source of  „Publics‟ not „public‟
info  Draw on diverse sources of
information

17. Brittle or resilient innovation?
 13-member expert panel
(industry associations,
nanoscience, social sciences,
NGOs, policymakers)
 Four scenarios for nanotech in
the UK to 2020
 Lack of public engagement
seen as potential obstacle to
innovation
 Nanofood identified as
potential flashpoint

18. Extreme reactions?
“Biotechnology, like nanotechnology,
represents the ultimate stage in
increasing the power to exercise a more
total dominion [...] of man over nature,
Il Silvestre animals and other humans – [...] the
(Italy)
attack on life will assume new
proportions and open up
unimaginable scenarios”
Silvia Guerini, Il Silvestre, May 2006
I n d i v i d u a l s Te n d i n g
“The ever more rapid acceleration of this
To w a r d s S a v a g e r y
technology will lead to the creation of
(Individualidades tendiendo a lo nano-cyborgs that can self-replicate
salvaje, Mexico)
automatically without the help of a human”
Manifesto at http://liberaciontotal.lahaine.org/?p=3581

19. Thank you for your attention
grovesc1@cf.ac.uk
http://cardiff.academia.edu/ChristopherGroves