Before the iPod Nano was introduced in September 2005, almost no one had heard of nanotechnology.  Not much has changed.   Ask the average person on the street if he or she knows what nanotechnology is, and the response you’re most likely hear will include a reference to Apple Computer’s tiniest version of its wildly popular entertainment gadget.

The iPod response caused a few chuckles at a May 2006 workshop, “Public Participation in Nanotechnology,” where the public’s lack of awareness of nanotechnology was a major topic of discussion.  Indeed, polls indicate that most people have heard nothing, or almost nothing, about nanotechnology.  See http://nanotechproject.org/78.

Experts Gather to Discuss Public Participation in Nanotechnology

The workshop was sponsored by the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), the Cabinet-level panel of experts that advises the President on science, space, and technology policies and programs.  NSET is made up of representatives of the 25 federal agencies involved in the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  It is responsible for coordinating planning, budgeting, and implementation of federally-funded nanoscale research and development programs.  See http://www.nano.gov/html/about/nsetmembers.html.           

The purpose of the two-day workshop was to “begin a dialogue on how the public can be engaged in nanotechnology-related issues and decisions” and to consider best practices in communication and key issues for nanotechnology-related public participation.  Attendees represented academia, government, industry, the media and other sectors.  See https://nnco.nano.gov/p2/.        

Why such interest in including the public in decision-making about an area of science and technology (S&T) about which almost no one has heard?  The answer lies in lessons learned from past experiences where public trust and risk perceptions were not anticipated, taken into account, and immediately and thoroughly addressed.  The examples most often cited are nuclear energy and GM (genetically modified) food.  Essentially, public opposition to these technologies has had a limiting effect on their use in addressing intractable problems, namely, energy shortages and world hunger.

Although no one knows exactly what risks and dangers could be associated with nanotechnology, the potential exists for a public backlash should new products and processes lead to questions and concerns about their effects on health and safety.   

The science and public policy community is thinking ahead; it wants to make sure that the public is onboard.  The goal is to avert the mistakes of the past by engaging the public now, or “upstream.”

Government Funding

Congress has also made public engagement a top priority.    In its report accompanying FY 2006 appropriations for several agencies, the Senate specifically encouraged the National Science Foundation (NSF), the lead agency in the government’s National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), “to make sure that public misconceptions of this field are minimized.”

In addition, Congress is providing the dollars to support it.  The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which became law in 2003, includes a provision for “a research program to identify the ethical, legal, environmental, and other societal concerns related to nanotechnology.”  Five departments and agencies -- NSF, the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the Commerce Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – were authorized to spend $3.7 billion over four years on various R&D programs, with NSF and DOE the largest recipients.  See  http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/science/press/109/21stNanoAct.pdf#search=%22%22Nanotechnology%20Research%20and%20Development%20Act%22%22.

NSF is now supporting several research and educational initiatives.  As part of its Nanotechnology in Society program, grants were awarded to four universities – Arizona State University ($6.2 million), the University of California at Santa Barbara ($5 million), Harvard/UCLA ($1.7 million), and the University of South Carolina ($1.4 million).  See http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104505.  Activities supported by those grants include:

• Studying how to include the public in decision-making;
• Engaging the public and researchers in deliberative and participatory forums;
• Monitoring risk perception, changing values, and societal response; and
• Examining the role of images in communicating about nanotechnology.

Engaging the Public

Representatives from each of the universities spoke at the workshop.  They, along with other speakers and participants, explored a wide range of issues.  Below are some of the questions given to participants for discussion in the break-out sessions, followed by some of the points made while attempting to answer them:

How do scientists, science communicators, and policy makers include a largely uninformed public in the decision-making process?  How do science communicators engage the unengaged?

• There is a need to increase public understanding of science and scientific literacy in general.  Scientists and science communicators could be doing more to inform and educate the public.  One of the problems is that people have no attitudes at all toward nanotechnology – because so few people know what it is.
  

• It’s difficult to engage the public when the public is neither knowledgeable about nor interested in the subject.
  

• Public outreach involves more than promoting pro-science views among the general public or simply improving literacy. 
  

• Every effort should be made to include the public in the decision-making process.  That is not the same as conducting a public relations campaign. S&T decisions embody broad values, such as priorities, risks, and (in)equities.  Decision-makers have an obligation to listen to the public and understand their questions and concerns, because their risk perceptions/beliefs will be key to understanding their behavior.
  

• An agenda needs to be set for public outreach.  But there is no single, one-size-fits-all approach for engaging the public, because there are a lot of publics and jurisdictions.  One of the challenges is to identify the various publics to be engaged.
  

• Public engagement is expensive. Canada invests much more than the United States in it.  NSF is eager to fund consensus conferences.
  

Who needs to be listening to the concerns of the public?

• Public outreach involves effective communication with all stakeholders.  The list of stakeholders is lengthy and includes lawmakers, regulators, policy makers, industry, scientists, etc.  It includes those who are in control of making the decisions and those who are not.
  

• Currently, public debate about scientific issues is dominated by interest groups and other partisan players; scientific views rarely become part of the discussion.
  

• Science news should not be limited to information about new studies; it should also include coverage of issues with public policy considerations.
  

• Industry may be one step ahead of the federal government in that it has already been working with special interest groups on nanotechnology issues – as a way of engaging the public on nanotechnology.
  

How do decision-makers communicate with the public?   How are risk perceptions formed, and what issues will affect risk perceptions related to nanotechnology?  How are decisions made under conditions of uncertainty?

• Building trust is the most effective way of addressing fear and risk perceptions.  The higher the level of trust, the lower the level of fear. 
  

• The public needs to trust the communicator, the organization that’s supposed to protect it, the organization creating the risk – and the process.
  

• Research shows that the public places the least trust in industry and politicians, and has relatively high levels of trust in consumer groups and independent experts like doctors and academics.
  

• The public is more likely to reject a closed decision-making process than an open one.  Keeping secrets is risky.
  

• An open dialogue should be maintained, along with respect for the audience’s feelings.  Audiences should not be manipulated or over-reassured. Communicators should focus on values first, ask the right questions, be inclusive, and “communicate on a human scale.”
  

• When communicating risk, the old saying “actions speak louder than words” applies.  Communicators should be careful to avoid making unsubstantiated claims about what the public knows and doesn’t know about science.
  

• Science communicators need to be prepared to address concerns that may be generated by the entertainment media.  For example, more people will be aware of the subject of nanotechnology when the movie version of the Michael Crichton novel Prey hits theaters.
  

• A single risk event or actual incident could change public attitudes overnight.
  

• It is important to acquire adequate feedback and evaluate the effectiveness of communication strategies.
  

What is the role of media in shaping public opinion?

• The public gets most of its information about science from the media, mostly from TV.  Newspapers and the Internet are also important sources.
  

• Nanotechnology has received relatively little media coverage.
  

• Because people know very little about most issues, including scientific ones, media framing does more to influence public opinion than anything else.  The same information, framed differently, can evoke different reactions.  Thus far, most media frames have been positive, focusing on the economic benefits and scientific potential of nanotechnology.   However, that may be changing.  
  

• Scientists and reporters need to do a better job of communicating with each other – because science stories tend to get distorted in the press.  Reporters tend to focus on what’s newsworthy, and that tends to be what’s controversial.
  

• More scientists need to know how to communicate effectively in plain English and should welcome the opportunity to work with journalists. 
  

What does the public need to know about nanotechnology in order to participate meaningfully?

• Most engagement and outreach efforts are aimed at informing the public and building nanotech literacy.
  

• The information deficit model (of science communication) assumes that the more the public knows about science and technology, the more supportive it is.  But that is not always the case.
  

• The public needs to know more about the potential risks and benefits, but it does not really need to know much about the science.

Public Outreach

The second day of the workshop was largely devoted to discussing ongoing outreach activities and efforts to inform and educate the public.  Most of the work in this area is being funded by NSF’s Informal Science Education program (with additional financial support provided by 12 NSF research programs).  This $20 million, five-year effort is called the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network.  The Museum of Science in Boston, along with the Science Museum of Minnesota and the Exploratorium in San Francisco, were selected to create and lead this network, which will also include many other science museums and research institutions.  Representatives of these organizations spoke at the workshop about their projects, which include:

• Interactive programs and exhibits;
• Live presentations and guest presenters that focus on inquiry-based learning;
• Immersive media such as planetariums and 3-D cinema;
• Visualization labs;
• Public forums for open discussion and debate;
• A media network to reach a broad audience;
• Websites that provide on-line access to exhibits, media, interactive activities,   and live webcasts;
• Professional development efforts to foster collaboration between researchers and educators; and
• An online professional resource center to provide current information about nanotechnology education, tools and materials, research and evaluation, and other professional resources.

One way to measure the effectiveness of outreach and education activities is by audience size.  Although these newly launched projects are expected to attract a significant number of visitors and participants, the overall number of people who are familiar with nanotechnology is likely to remain low. 

When Nanotechnology Becomes A Household Word

What will make the general public become aware of nanotechnology?  In the absence of some type of catastrophe, awareness is likely to increase when coverage in the mass media, especially television, increases.

Curious about nanotechnology’s infiltration of popular culture, the author decided to query members of an online forum.  Members of this group are all major fans of television, but they are atypical in that their online conversation is usually about the business and politics of television, not the latest plot twists in various shows.  Most members of this group are men, and they are highly media savvy.  The following question was asked:

Does anyone here recall any entertainment program with a storyline in which nanotechnology is mentioned?  If you do, could you tell me the name of the show – and, if you remember, something about the plotline?

More than a dozen responses were received by the end of the day.  Each person who responded mentioned at least one science fiction fantasy show or episode, including Star Trek, Stargate, Jake 2.0, The Outer Limits, Max Steel, Doctor Who, Gargoyles, Mystery Science Theater 3000, Red Dwarf, and even a show for kids, Strange Days at Blake Holsey High.  Based on the responses, it would seem that every science fiction series has had at least one storyline that featured nanotechnology.

No series not in the science fiction/fantasy category was mentioned.  No one named a drama series such as The West Wing (which regularly featured science-related storylines) or a situation comedy, both of which usually have much larger audiences than science fiction series, because, unlike science fiction, they are usually shown on the broadcast, not cable, networks.  However, a few weeks later, a member noted that The Daily Show had featured a segment devoted to nanotechnology.  A few studies have documented that  TV comedy shows, such as The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, and late night talk shows, have become leading sources of news for young adults.

An online discussion of the responses led to the following exchange between the author and one of the members:

Author:  The federal government is spending a lot of money on informing, educating -- and "engaging" the public about nanotechnology.  It's trying to head off any public backlash should there be concerns about health and safety.

TV group member:  Whoops.  I think pretty much all of our suggestions were not exactly presenting nanotech in a positive light.

Author:  So, what you’re saying is that TV isn’t making it easy for scientists and government officials who want the public to believe that nanotechnology is good for them.

TV group member:  Well, isn’t it true that most fictional television presents science as a dark art and scientists as likely to go rogue and try to kill us all?  I must admit that I’ve never met a mad scientist, but if I did, I’d probably be very cross with him.   

Questions for the Regulators

Given the public’s lack of awareness of nanotechnology, it is probably not a good idea at this time to place too much faith in polls.  As Jack Shafer, Slate’s editor at large, recently remarked, “[w]hen you gather opinions from people on subjects of which they know little or nothing, you’re only collecting interesting garbage” (http://www.slate.com/id/2102303/).  Nevertheless, surveys have been conducted.  For example, an August 2006 survey (http://nanotechproject.org/78) indicated that, although many people had yet to form an opinion about the tradeoff between the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, among those who had, most thought that risks would outweigh benefits.  Moreover, when those having the least familiarity with nanotechnology were fed a little knowledge about the subject, they were even more likely to say that risks outweigh benefits. 

In October 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was in the news.  First, the Woodrow Wilson Center issued a report questioning the ability of the FDA to adequately regulate products made with nanotechnology, concluding that it lacked both the authority and the funding to ensure the safety of the public.  See http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=202942.  During the same month, a meeting of experts was held at the FDA to discuss how the agency should regulate the new products.  The number of nanotechnology-based products now on the market now exceeds 300.

Given these developments, it seems evident that the science policy community is on the right track in recognizing the need for public education and engagement.  But it could take awhile before the average person on the street knows that the iPod Nano has nothing to do with nanotechnology.