 
NanoJury
Method(s) Used
Name of person who posted the project:Ali Howes
Location of project:England
Date when the project started:2005
Date when the project ended/project ongoing:2005
Background to project:A two-way citizens� jury on nanotechnologies that ran in June and July, 2005. The first half of the jury process explored an issue that participants chose; the second half focused on nanotechnologies.The Jury was organised by Cambridge University Nanoscience Centre, Greenpeace UK, The Guardian and the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre (PEALS), Newcastle University. Purpose of project:To provide a potential vehicle for people's informed views on nanotechnologies to have an impact on policy.To facilitate a mutually educative dialogue between people with diverse perspectives and interests, including critical and constructive scrutiny by a wider group of citizens of the hopes and aspirations of those working in nanotechnologies-related sectors. To explore the potential for deliberative processes to broaden discussions about nanotechnologies-research policy�both in terms of the range of issues and the diversity of people who are given a say. Project activities:NanoJury UK was made up of sixteen residents of the West Yorkshire Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale, who were involved through letters sent to people on the electoral register and via suggestions from youth and community workers.The process involved a multi-stakeholder oversight panel to oversee balance and fairness in the process, and a science advisory panel to ensure accuracy and balance in the evidence presented. Professor Pidgeon and Dr Rogers-Hayden, when reflecting on (evaluating) the jury, identified the involvement of the multi-stakeholder panel in the NanoJury as one of its strengths. Project results:NanoJury UK sought to give the jurors some control over the process by allowing them to address a topic of their choice before turning to nanotechnologies. The jurors chose to look at young people, exclusion, and crime in the local community, which they did over eight evening sessions of two and a half hours each.They subsequently discussed nanotechnologies in ten sessions of two and half hours each. After an introduction to nanotechnologies, they heard evidence from six witnesses who were selected by the oversight panel. In the last few sessions, the jurors wrote recommendations for nanotechnology�s future development in the UK, and noted the degree of support among the jurors for every recommendation. These recommendations were presented to an audience of policy-makers, scientists, journalists, and social researchers at an event in London in September, 2005, which three jurors attended. Contact details:Address of contact org and/or evaluation reportswww.nanojury.org.uk (see also www.greenpeace.org.uk/tags/nanotechnology for Greenpeace�s records of NanoJury, including a link to the recommendations). Contact: Tom Wakeford, PEALS. peals@newcastle.ac.uk Funders: The project was co-funded by Cambridge University Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration (IRC) in Nanotechnology; FRONTIERS Network of Excellence in Nanotechnology; Greenpeace UK; and PEALS. |
Recommended Case Studies
|
