![[logo] US EPA](../gif/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Public Involvement Network News
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
Democratic Technologies
That’s the title of The Final Report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group [172 pages], by Karen Gavelin and Richard Wilson, both of Involve, with Robert Doubleday at Cambridge University. This report presents the findings of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). The NEG was established in 2005 to document the learning from a series of groundbreaking attempts to involve members of the public in discussions about the development and governance of nanotechnologies.
In laboratories across the world, new scientific territory is being uncovered everyday; territory that offers groundbreaking opportunities for society, as well as new risks and unexpected challenges. Just as yesterday’s science and technology has contributed to shaping today’s world, these new technologies will help shape the world of tomorrow. The power of technology is clear, but its governance is not. Who or what makes these world-shaping decisions? And in whose interests are they made? These are the questions posed by a growing number of researchers, NGOs, citizens, politicians and scientists who seek to challenge the way that science and technology is governed and invent new ways to democratise the development of new technologies. This report documents the progress of six projects that have sought to do just that – by engaging the public in discussions about the governance and development of nanotechnologies.
The NEG studied six UK projects that sought to engage members of the public in dialogue about nanotechnologies. Their research found that upstream public engagement in science and technology can produce impressive results:
- It can generate valuable messages about public concerns and aspirations, or open up new lines of questioning and debate. Such messages can contribute to making science policy and research better informed and more aligned with public needs and aspirations.
- It can open up science funding and policy structures to public scrutiny and debate, thus helping to make science governance more transparent.
- It can create space for scientists and decision-makers to reflect on the wider, social implications of their work, thus helping to put science into context.
- It can give public participants new knowledge and skills to engage with science and policy issues that affect them, thus creating active citizens who are more scientifically aware.
- It can help overcome negative preconceptions and cultural barriers between scientists, members of the public, and decision-makers, which can lead to greater appreciation among members of the public for the realities of science policy and research, and to greater appreciation among scientists and decision-makers of the ability of non-scientists to contribute meaningfully to science and policy discourses.
Researchers also identified some challenges for public engagement in science
and technology, including:
- Creation of meaningful connections between public engagement and institutional decision-making.
- Lack of understanding and appreciation in decision-making institutions and science communities of the different impacts and benefits that public engagement can deliver.
- Lack of capacity and interest in public engagement within decision-making institutions and science communities.
- A need to distribute the benefits and impacts of public engagement among more people.