Home
>>
Public Participation Case Studies
>>
browse case studies >>
Nanotechnology engagement group
|
Sign up to watch Public Participation Case Studies
Sign up to watch Public Participation Case Studies
 
Nanotechnology engagement group
Method(s) Used
Name of person who posted the project:Dominic Potter Unknown macro: {rate}
Location of project:United Kingdom
Date when the project started:2007
Date when the project ended/project ongoing:2008
Background to project:After tensions and public debates about issues such as genetically modified (GM) crops and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (so-called Mad cow disease) in the 1990s, it was widely acknowledged that there was a need to increase public confidence in science decision-making.. The project was also driven by the need to develop public policy on nanotechnology and was strongly linked to the cross-government Nanotechnology Issues Dialogue Group (NIDG). . Purpose of project:The NEG project sought to answer the question: ?What are the uses and limits of public engagement on emerging science and technology? Could the promise of public dialogue as an aid to making better, more accountable policy decisions be proved??. An additional purpose was to test the idea of ?upstream engagement? (where engagement takes place before decisions are made) and learn from a number of projects which were engaging directly with the public in one specific area of science. The aim was to find out what worked and to evaluate the use of the outcomes for policy creators. . Project activities:The project was built to:*carry out research into different stakeholders? expectations of public engagement with nanotechnologies *map current public engagement activities related to nanotechnologies in the UK and internationally *identify lessons from other engagement activities *analyse how the lessons learned relate back to the range of interested audiences and the spectrum of engagement activities undertaken *communicate the learning to Government, other stakeholders, nanoscience researchers and the wider public . Project results:A clear result of the NEG process was that it was able to recognise and document that direct engagement between scientists and the public creates change, as well as significantly increasing the knowledge of all those involved in the issue.. In terms of policy making, the NIDG clearly acknowledges the NEG findings in its work, although actual policy development may be some way off. . The scientists who took part were clearly affected by the change. Some have become advocates of the process of citizen engagement in science, telling those present at the final conference what had changed ?back at the lab? as a result of their involvement. This change is very important and could create a ?trickle down? effect as more scientists become comfortable with the notion of engagement on nanotechnology. . The project also found that in the relatively new field of public dialogue, the vocabulary used can sometimes be confusing and problematic. The final report provides a glossary of terms, which may prove to be useful to many people. . Furthermore, the project provided further evidence that the public has a large appetite and capacity for dialogue around science issues. This means it will be necessary to improve access to the information and process of a public dialogue to allow members of the public who are outside the ?official? dialogue to be included. . Contact details:Project Manager: Karin GavelinE-mail: karin@involve.org.uk Tel: 020 7632 0123 . The interim and final reports as well as details about participating organisations and individuals can be found at: http://www.involve.org.uk/nine-principles  . |
Recommended Case Studies
|
