Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: a case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research

Abstract

This paper examines the prospects for integrating social context questions within science and technology research and development governance. While the use of public engagement to investigate social aspects of emerging technologies is increasingly accepted, incorporating social understandings into research and development processes is far less developed. The paper outlines two Australian public engagement workshops in the social issues of nanotechnologies, and a third workshop with nanoscientists, which explored governance options for incorporating social context questions within research processes. Our research suggests that in Australia we are still some distance from integrating social issues into nanotechnology research and development governance. In part, this is because the difficulties of prediction and control of nanotechnologies, together with particular characteristics of scientific cultures and institutions, make both prospects and outcomes of integration difficult to assess.

How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople's talk

“…technology, publics tend to be cautiously enthusiastic about its potential [16][17][18][19][20]. Findings from international deliberative processes 2 have also indicated a now standard set of preferences and concerns about the technology: that its development should be open and accountable; that medical applications should be prioritised; that a precautionary approach should be taken; that regulation is needed; that the technology's benefits should be distributed equitably [21][22][23][24][25][26][27].…”

Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders’ constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies

“…These include a lack of clarity in the use of basic concepts and the definitions of outcomes, an absence of opportunities for dialogue between the sponsors of technologies and publics, and a lack of commitment to the concept of engagement and/or receptivity to the concerns raised during engagement processes (see, e.g. Rowe & Frewer 2005, Katz et al 2009, Miller & Scrinis 2010. Efforts labelled 'public engagement' have, in many cases, been about advancing 'scientific literacy', the assumption being that a 'literate' population is more likely to support promising innovations.…”

Creating Inquiry Between Technology Developers and Civil Society Actors: Learning from Experiences Around Nanotechnology

“…The participation of civil society actors is particularly visible in the development of newly emerging nanosciences and nanotechnologies where early, so-called upstream public engagement has been piloted in a number of countries and in different ways, ranging from one-day events (for example, see Katz et al 2009; Van Oudheusden and De Zutter 2012) to fully fledged societal dialogues (Pfersdorf 2012; Krabbenborg 2012). …”