Abstract
Nanotechnologies, like other innovations of great impact on the environment and health, create strong controversies and allow you to check the different points of view that experts, policy makers and citizens posing on the public sphere. Analyzing the public debate, it is possible to study how the dialogue between the different actors is developed, both in the sense of participation, both in the sense of involvement. In this chapter I will try to highlight the strengths and weakness of deliberative processes used in the case of nanotechnology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this context, reference is made to the concept of governance formulated by Le Gales (1998): ‘the coordination process of actors, social groups and institutions to achieve their objectives discussed and decided collectively in fragmented, uncertain environments’.
- 2.
See the following websites: http://www.framingnano.eu and http://www.nanoforum.eu.
- 3.
As a link to that, see the plenty of initiatives launched by the European Union along with other countries. Among them, we can recommend ‘nanoTruck’, which is a journey across Germany to disclose the principles and the areas used for nanotechnologies (http://www.nanotruck.de). We also recommend ‘Interactive journey into the nanocosmos’, a website which has been created for showing the nanoscale dimensions through which specific applications can be shaped (http://www.nanoreisen.de). Also, the French ministry of research launched the following website: http://www.nanomonde.fr. In 2005, a brochure called ‘À la découverte du nanomonde’ was distributed in order to illustrate the so-called ‘nanoworld’ (http://www.nanomicro.recherche.gouv.fr/docs/plaq.nanomonde.pdf). In the United Kingdom, a series of computer devices has been developed in order to improve the knowledge of nanotechnologies stemming from Oxford University (http://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/courses/professional/nanobasics/nano/interface.html). In 2005, London’s Science Museum hosted the exhibition ‘Nanotechnology: Small Science‚ Big Deal’ by using a multimedia platform in order to show how nanotechnologies work (http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/nano/index.asp). All these initiatives became part of a public information campaign which did not arouse great controversies. What attempted to highlight the potential risks and anxieties of the public was a report published in 2004 by the Royal Society with the title ‘Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties’ (http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm). Another attempt to collect ideas from the public is given by the ‘Nanotechnology Engagement Group’, which was established with the aim of promoting public involvement through projects such as ‘Nanodialogues – Experiments in public engagement with science’. These projects were supported by Demos and Lancaster University in 2005. There, the public had the opportunity to talk with the scientists about governance, research funding and other issues linked to the development of nanotechnologies (http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/thenanodialogues/overview).
Another initiative which had a strong public impact was NanoJury, carried out in 2005 along with Greenpeace, ‘the Guardian’ and some UK universities. A group of 25 randomly selected citizens joined in a debate which produced a paper of advice on health, social as well as environmental issues and their normative requests to be addressed to decision makers. The ‘Code of Conduct’ is an initiative by the Royal Society whose aim is to promote – along with the Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) – a responsible development of nanotechnologies. A similar initiative was promoted by a study group as for the shaping of the ‘NanoCode’, with the aim of getting involved in the debate on the technical, social as well as commercial issues linked to nanotech innovation. Published in 2008, the code suggested the seven best practices to be followed by the organizations on a voluntary basis (http://www.responsiblenanocode.org).
- 4.
Adler, E., and Haas, P. (1992), Epistemic communities, world order and the creation of a reflective research program, International Organization, 46(1): 367–390.
- 5.
This is the report resulting from a consensus conference which took place in the United States in 2005 (Kleinmann and Powell 2005). The meeting involved a group of 13 citizens and 7 experts and it adopted a participatory procedure throughout three weekends. After discussing with the experts, the citizens filed a final document in which they gave their suggestions on issues such as the environment, human health, control, the media and public participation. All these were connected with the future development of research on nanotechnologies. The initiative was supported by the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center from the University of Wisconsin and the UW Integrated Liberal Studies Programme, Wisconsin.
References
Beck, U. 1992. Risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beierle, T.C., and J. Cayford. 2002. Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Bobbio, L. 2002. Le arene deliberative. Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche 3: 5–29.
Bucchi, M., and F. Neresini (eds.). 2006. Cellule e cittadini. Biotecnologie nello spazio pubblico. Milano: Sironi Editore.
Callon, M. 2003. The increasing involvement of concerned groups in R&D policies: What lessons for public powers? In Science and innovation, ed. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmuller, 30–68. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cross, A. 2003. Drawing up guidelines for the collection and use of expert advice: The experience of the European Commission. Science and Public Policy 30(3): 189–192.
Eeten, M.V. 2001. The challenge ahead for deliberative democracy: In reply to Weale. Science and Public Policy 28(6): 423–426.
Einsiedel, E., and D. Eastlick. 2000. Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy. Science Communication 21(4): 323–343.
Elder, M.J. 1997. The process of community involvement. A case study: The Bartlesville, Oklahoma, lead project toxicology and industrial health. Toxicology and Industrial Health 13(2/3): 395–400.
European Commission. 2007. Governance and ethics of nanotechnology. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1524. Accessed 24 Jun 2014.
European Commission. 2008. Third international dialogue on responsible research and development of nanotechnology. http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/intldialogue.htm. Accessed 20 Oct 2012.
Felt, U., et al. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Felt, U., S. Schuman, C. Schwarz, and M. Strassnig. 2014. Technology of imagination: A card-based public engagement method for debating emerging technologies. Qualitative Research 14(2): 233–251.
Gallino, L. 2007. Tecnologia e Democrazia. Torino: Einaudi.
Gastil, J., and J.P. Dillard. 1999. Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication 16(1): 3–23.
Guston, D. 1999. ‘Evaluating the first US consensus conference: The impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, and Human Values 24(4): 451–482.
Irwin, A., and M. Michael. 2003. Science, theory and public knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Irwin, A., and B. Wynne (eds.). 1996. Misunderstanding science? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S. 1995. Science at the bar: Law, science and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S. 2004. Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy 31(2): 90–94.
Joss, S., and J. Durant. 1995. The UK national consensus conference on plant biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 4(2): 195–204.
Kleinman, D.L. (ed.). 2000. Science, technology, and democracy. New York: State University of New York Press.
Kleinman, D.L., and M. Powell. 2005. Report of the Madison area citizen consensus conference on nanotechnology (2005, April 25). Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center at the University of Wisconsin.
Le Gales, P. 1998. La nuova political economy di città e regioni. Stato e mercato 53(1): 53–91.
Liberatore, A., and S. Funtowicz. 2003. Democratising expertise, expertising democracy: What does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy 30(3): 146–150.
Neresini, F. 2007. Prima della prima. Sapere 73(4): 6–13.
Nowotny, H. 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30(3): 151–156.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons (eds.). 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2002. Guidance document on risk communication for chemical risk management. Paris: OECD.
Pellegrini, G. 2005. Biotecnologie e Cittadinanza. Padova: Gregoriana Editore.
Pellegrini, G. (a cura di). 2008. Technoscientific innovation and new forms of democracy. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
Pellizzoni, L. 2001. Democracy and the governance of uncertainty. The case of agricultural gene technologies. Journal of Hazardous Materials 86(1–3): 205–222.
Pellizzoni, L. (a cura di). 2005. La deliberazione pubblica. Roma: Meltemi Editore.
Petersen, A., and D. Bowman. 2012. Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders’ constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies. Ethics in Science and Environmental Policies 12: 67–79.
Pidgeon, N., and A. Corner. 2013. Nanotechnologies and upstream public engagement. Dilemmas, debates and prospects? In The social life of nanotechnology, ed. B. Her Hartorn and J.W. Mohr, 169–194. London: Routledge.
Powell, M., and D.L. Kleinmann. 2008. Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus Conference model. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 329–348.
Public Debate Steering Board (PDSB). 2003. GM nation? The findings of the public debate. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
Radaelli, C.M. 2002. Democratising expertise? In Participatory governance. Political and societal implications, ed. J.R. Grote and B. Gbikpi, 197–212. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.
Ravetz, J. 1996. Scientific knowledge and its social problems. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Regonini, G. 2005. Paradossi della Democrazia Deliberativa. Stato e Mercato 60(1): 3–32.
Renn, O., and M.C. Roco. 2006. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8(2): 153–191.
Roco, M.C. 2008. Nanotechnology governance. Presentation at the third international dialogue on responsible research and development of nanotechnology, Brussels, March 11–12.
Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values 25(1): 3–29.
Stehr, N. (ed.). 2004. The governance of knowledge. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Weale, A. 2003. Science advice, democratic responsiveness and public policy. Science and Public Policy 28(6): 413–421.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pellegrini, G. (2014). Governance of Nanotechnology: Engagement and Public Participation. In: Arnaldi, S., Ferrari, A., Magaudda, P., Marin, F. (eds) Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9103-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9103-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9102-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9103-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)