Avoiding empty rhetoric: engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies

The risk perception of nanotechnology: evidence from twitter

Nanotechnology governance, particularly in relation to human and environmental concerns, remains a contested domain. In recent years, the creation of both a risk governance framework and council has been actively pursued. Part of the function of a governance framework is the communication to external stakeholders. Existing descriptions on the public perceptions of nanotechnology are generally positive with the attendant economic and societal benefits being forefront in that thinking. Debates on nanomaterials' risk tend to be dominated by expert groupings while the general public is largely unaware of the potential hazards. Communicating via social media has become an integral part of everyday life facilitating public connectedness around specific topics that was not feasible in the pre-digital age. When civilian passive stakeholders become active their frustration can quickly coalesce into a campaign of resistance, and once an issue starts to develop into a campaign it is difficult to ease the momentum. Simmering discussions with moderate local attention can gain international exposure resulting in pressure and it can, in some cases, quickly precipitate legislative action and/or economic consequences. This paper highlights the potential of such a runaway, twitterstorm. We conducted a sentiment analysis of tweets since 2006 focusing on silver, titanium and carbon-based nanomaterials. We further examined the sentiment expressed following the decision by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to phase out the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171). Our analysis shows an engaged, attentive public, alert to announcements from industry and regulatory bodies. We demonstrate that risk governance frameworks, particularly the communication aspect of those structures must include a social media blueprint to counter misinformation and alleviate the potential impact of a social media induced regulatory and economic reaction.

Public Engagement and Nanotechnology in Australia

Upstream engagement is commonly regarded as necessary for the smooth implementation of new technologies, particularly when there is an impact on health. Is the healthcare context in Australia geared toward such public engagement? There are established engagement practices for issues of healthcare resourcing, for example; however, the situation becomes more complex with the introduction of a new technology such as nanomedicine.

Ethics, Risk and Benefits Associated with Different Applications of Nanotechnology: a Comparison of Expert and Consumer Perceptions of Drivers of Societal Acceptance

Examining those risk and benefit perceptions utilised in the formation of attitudes and opinions about emerging technologies such as nanotechnology can be useful for both industry and policy makers involved in their development, implementation and regulation. A broad range of different socio-psychological and affective factors may influence consumer responses to different applications of nanotechnology, including ethical concerns. A useful approach to identifying relevant consumer concerns and innovation priorities is to develop predictive constructs which can be used to differentiate applications of nanotechnology in a way which is meaningful to consumers. This requires elicitation of attitudinal constructs from consumers, rather than measuring attitudes assumed to be important by the researcher. Psychological factors influencing societal responses to 15 applications of nanotechnology drawn from different application areas (e.g. medicine, agriculture and environment, food, military, sports, and cosmetics) were identified using repertory grid method in conjunction with generalised Procrustes analysis. The results suggested that people differentiate nanotechnology applications based on the extent to which they perceive them to be beneficial, useful, necessary and important. The benefits may be offset by perceived risks focusing on fear and ethical concerns. Compared to an earlier expert study on societal acceptance of nanotechnology, consumers emphasised ethical issues compared to experts but had less concern regarding potential physical contact with the product and time to market introduction. Consumers envisaged fewer issues with several applications compared to experts, in particular food applications.

Attitudes and attitudinal ambivalence change towards nanotechnology applied to food production

The strategic development of novel nanotechnologies will be determined by their public acceptance, which in turn may be influenced by public perceptions of the risks and benefits associated with the specific applications. At the present time, public opinions towards nanotechnologies remain largely inchoate, although this is likely to change with increasing public exposure to relevant information. In two experiments, a total of 618 participants, from the UK population, were provided with different risk-benefit information on nanotechnology application in food. The results show that the provision of both risk and benefit information does not influence average attitude, but results in some individuals becoming more positive and less ambivalent and others more negative and less ambivalent towards nanotechnologies. A third group maintained a neutral attitude and became more ambivalent. It is concluded that to understand public opinion formation about nanotechnology keeping track of polarization and ambivalence is important.

The Challenges of Community Engagement

Lyons and Whelan provide a useful list of recommendations as to how community engagement on nanotechnology could be improved, which very few people working in community engagement could disagree with. However, as the conclusions of any study are dependent on the data obtained, if more data had been obtained and analysed then different conclusions might have been reached. Addressing the key issues in the paper and providing more data, also allows an opportunity to expand on current issues relating to community engagement on nanotechnology and the challenges it provides for practitioners.