• Wednesday 7^th November 2007, 10:30am-4pm
• Demos, 3rd Floor, Magdalen House, 136 Tooley Street, London, SE1 2TU

We are delighted to have the following speakers helping us prompt the conversation

• Mark Welland, Professor of Nanotechnology and Director of the IRC in Nanotechnology at Cambridge University
• Richard Jones, Professor of Physics at the University of Sheffield and Senior Strategic Advisor for Nanotechnology at the EPSRC
• David Grimshaw, Practical Action
• A representative from the UK Department for International Development (tbc)

Governments and companies are all talking about Nanotechnology – the science of the very small – as the next big technological thing. But with the opportunities come concerns for those people who are too often left out of conversations about technology – the poor. Nano-enthusiasts often point to the benefits for developing countries – in water filtration or new solar cells. But we can’t assume that realising this potential is straightforward.

In 2006, Demos and Practical Action ran a ‘Nanodialogues’ workshop in Zimbabwe to find out more about nano for development. We brought together six scientists and six community representatives to identify problems of and solutions for clean water. At that workshop, our Zimbabwean participants recommended that Western scientists get involved in new sorts of research, directed at these clear human needs. 

Now, we want to bring together scientists, NGOs and others in the UK, where there is greater potential to fund research looking at development issues. The aim is to come up with a research agenda that blends NGOs’ experiences of development challenges with cutting edge science.

RSVP to jack.stilgoe@demos.co.uk.

We hope to see you there.

• Grants are available for NGOs from the European Union to travel to the workshop. Please contact Jack to find out more.
• This workshop is supported by the European Commission’s Science, Technology and Civil Society project (www.peopleandscience.org), which aims at new research from dialogue between scientists and NGOs.
• For more on the nanodialogues, visit www.demos.co.uk/projects/thenanodialogues

Enough talk already (p.1)

Governments should act on researchers’ attempts to engage the public over nanotechnology.

There hasn't been anything quite like it in the history of science. Over the past three years, in Europe, the United States and Australasia, a plethora of groups of scientists and other citizens have discussed nanotechnology in extended exercises in 'public engagement'. These initiatives have arisen partly because of the acute awareness by many that all is not as it should be either in the degree of trust in science and technologies on the part of the public, or in confidence in nanotechnology in particular.

As documented in a report published last week (see http://www.involve.org.uk/negreport), these initiatives have a number of common features. Definitions of the word 'nanotechnology' have been chewed over, optimism expressed that nanotechnology can benefit mankind, but — most importantly — concerns have been expressed about a lack of knowledge and regulation surrounding the impact of nanoparticles on health and the environment.

Equally notable were common outcomes for participants, where members of the public and scientists reported how much they had unexpectedly gained in understanding each others' perspectives. Scientists appreciated how non-scientific participants were constructively interested and able to get to grips with key aspects of a complex subject. The latter, meanwhile, usually starting from zero, gained knowledge about what scientists are doing and about their motivation, and a greater awareness of the potential impacts — both real and hyped.

But what's the point of such engagement? One positive example inspired many subsequent activities: the 2004 report on nanoscience and nanotechnology by the British Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. This was productive not only in its content but also in the way the various processes of engagement enhanced its public credibility and helped ensure that the questions it addressed were of appropriate scope.

A more recent example was a series of 'Nanodialogues', workshops conducted by the UK think-tank Demos unveiled last week (see http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/nanodialogues). One workshop, involving Unilever, showed how issues of corporate social responsibility arise not only in manufacturing processes and products but also in corporate R&D. Another, conducted in a village near Harare in Zimbabwe, demonstrated how remote from reality are some claims made for nanotechnology's potential impact on water purification in the developing world.

A nanodialogue in Swindon involved engagement between 14 local citizens and scientists funded by two UK research councils based there. Here was an example of true 'upstream engagement', the idea — often suspiciously received by scientists — that both the public and scientists have something to gain from discussing future research prospects as an input to research funding. Most encouraging for researchers was the strong support by public participants for fundamental science..

A taste of true upstream thinking by nanoscientists can be found in blogs at http://ideasfactory.wordpress.com. These feature futuristic nanotechnology concepts, including software-controlled assembly of a variety of building-blocks (small molecules to nanoparticles) linked by covalent bonds, and the development of a flexible machine, computer language and compiler as an assembler of molecules and materials under atomically precise control.

These are potentially powerful enabling technologies. To take a view on their risks or values, either as a scientist or as a citizen, depends on imagined contexts of application. The benefit of the public engaging with scientists years or even decades ahead of the arrival of such technologies lies in the broadening of the bases of knowledge, mutual trust and — most importantly — critical appraisal. One challenge now is how to allow a much larger proportion of the public to share in those benefits.

Few governments have put solid investment in the one type of research most consistently and urgently demanded by these groups — on the health and environmental risks of technologies already embedded in hundreds of products on store shelves. Commendably, a new Australian initiative in nanotechnology research includes such investment.

Regrettably, the governments of two countries that have taken strong leads in nanotechnology — the United States and Britain — have failed to respond. These governments and others not only need to act on this outcome of public engagement but must also integrate such processes into their departments' and agencies' activities.

Demos, Involve and the Science and Democracy Network invite you to join us for a day of discussion on Tuesday 26 June. (See full pdf).

From 09:30 to 15:30, we will be launching two reports, which present the results of the public engagement that has taken place in the UK through the Nanodialogues project and the Nanotechnology Engagement Group

In 2004, the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering published a groundbreaking report on nanotechnologies, and called for more public debate. Three years on, where do we stand? Has public engagement become part of the fabric of nanoscience? Is it only being used to manage risks, or has it also helped to shape innovation trajectories?

This discussion will be followed in the afternoon by a keynote address from Sir David King, and a debate on ‘A new social contract for science?’

Agenda

09:30    Registration and coffee

10:00    The Nanodialogues: four experiments in public engagement

Chair: James Wilsdon, Head of Science and Innovation, Demos

Jack Stilgoe, Senior Researcher, Demos

Brian Wynne, Professor of Science Studies, Lancaster University

Ann Dowling, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cambridge and chair, Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering working group on nanoscience and nanotechnology

11:10    Tea and coffee

11:30    The Nanotechnology Engagement Group

Chair: Richard Jones, Professor of Physics, University of Sheffield and Chair of Nanotechnology Engagement Group

Key findings: Richard Wilson, Director, Involve

Panel Discussion:

Sir John Beringer, Professor of Molecular Genetics, Bristol University and chair of the Council for Science and Technology Nanotechnology sub-committee

Pierre-Benoit Joly, Research Director, National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA), France

David Guston, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, USA

Public Participants from Nanojury and Nanodialogues

13:00    Lunch

14:00    Where next for public engagement in science?

Chair: Richard Wilson, Involve

Keynote address:

Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government and Head of the Office of Science and Innovation

With responses from:

Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Harvard University

Richard Jones, Professor of Physics, University of Sheffield

Doug Parr, Chief Scientist, Greenpeace UK

15:30    Tea

16:00    DEBATE: ‘A new social contract for science?’

In these final days of Tony Blair’s premiership, there is widespread speculation about the changes in policy that his successor will introduce. Science is one area being tipped for a shakeup, perhaps through the creation of a new ministry, or a merger with education and skills. Tinkering with the machinery of government is one way of signaling a fresh start, but will such changes be accompanied by any more fundamental reappraisal of the changing social and political context for science?  

There is now a growing recognition that knowledge societies demand knowing citizens, with a voice in decisions about science. At the same time, boundaries are blurring between public and private interests in research. And the traditional dominance of Europe and the US is being challenged by the rise of new centres of innovation. How successfully are policymakers in the UK and elsewhere grappling with these challenges? Are relations between science and society improving or getting worse? How might things change under a new PM, a new science minister and – potentially –  a new department? Our panel of leading thinkers will debate whether we need a new social contract for science.

Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Harvard University

David Edgerton, Professor of History of Science and Technology, Imperial College London and author The Shock of the Old

Ben Goldacre, Doctor, writer and ‘Bad science’ columnist for The Guardian

Hilary Rose, Emerita Professor of Social Policy, University of Bradford

Andy Stirling, Professor of Science and Technology Policy, University of Sussex

Chair: James Wilsdon, Demos

This final session is co-hosted with the Science and Democracy Network (www.ksg.harvard.edu/sts/about/sdn.htm), and marks the start of the 2007 SDN meeting, which takes place from 27-29 June in Cambridge.

18:00    Drinks reception

RSVP by email to science@demos.co.uk and let us know whether you would like to attend for the whole day, the 9:30-4pm sessions or the 4pm-6:00pm session

For the last year, we at Demos have been doing what we call 'experiments in public engagement.' We have been bringing together new groups of people to open up debates about the means and ends of nanotechnology research and development. The fascinating thing about the Ideas Factory for me is that it is an experiment in funding science, as well as being an experiment with a new form of conversation about science. Scientists, like any group, spend much of their time hanging out with, talking to, reading and reading about people with narrowly similar interested. What will happen when people are brought together from different disciplines, cultures, places and languages? We'll see.

Richard Jones, who is running the thing, has set up a blog that gives the world an opportunity to look at and shout into the sand pit. Nano-geeks can join us at ideasfactory.wordpress.com.

My worry in all of this is that the survey was conducted at a time when definitions of "public engagement" are as varied as the scientists who want to tread streets or tread boards, despite receiving no reward (and sometimes sneers) for doing so. The Royal Society rightly identify their own need to clarify what they mean by public engagement. I'll be interested to see what they come up with. Is it about sending scientists to schools to get people studying science? Is it about public lectures or TV appearances? Is it listening to public values about research, ethics and innovation? Or is it all of things?

It seems, given this recent press release, that we've a way to go before convincing everyone of the value of dialogue about science.

(Update: Man alive, that's a lot of blogging on one day! A record perhaps?)