Piecing Together the Elephant Public Engagement o

Authors: Craig Cormick

Publish Date: 2009/06/19

Volume: 15, Issue: 4, Pages: 439-

PDF Link

Abstract

As Kyle and Dodds point out in Science and Engineering Ethics issue 15 engaging the public on nanotechnology issues has clearly become a high priority over recent years and the increasing amount of social science research feeding into public engagement should improve the quality of what is being undertaken Kyle and Dodds 2009 But should we now turn the gaze of research closer towards the organisations undertaking engagement and try to understand them and their values as well as we are seeking to understand those of the publicThe Australian Office of Nanotechnology AON is charged with undertaking community engagement activities seeking to encourage an informed debate based on balanced and factual information This has included information exchange and education programs underpinned by ongoing public attitude research to best understand the Australian publicOne lesson that has been gained by the Office from working with partners in the OECD and through exposure to experts like Professor Arie Rip of the Netherlands is that many engagement activities don’t really find many things new and many have trouble translating their engagement outcomes into actual policy outcomes when not all key stakeholders have buyin to the process OECD 2008Having undertaken a series of nationwide community forums on nanotechnology providing information and hearing from the public a key challenge identified in Australia was how to engage with the unengaged rather than the already engaged—who tend to make up the audiences for such events It can also be difficult to attract and maintain public interest in a debate being conducted between interest groups particularly when it degenerates into polarised extremes of those passionately for and against the technology—neither of which align well with the broad public interest in hearing a balanced account of the relevance of different applications to their livesSeeking to find a more effective and inclusive way to engage the public the AON held a workshop on Social Inclusion and Engagement on Nanotechnology late in 2008 inviting equal numbers of representatives of the five key interest groups government industry researchers community groups and activists or change agents seeking to develop some common principles and try to find ways to work together rather than against each other Amongst the 45 people who attended were five members of the general public chosen by a market research company as best representing people about midrange in public attitudes based on a previous Australiawide attitudinal study Australian Office of Nanotechnology 2008There were also a few notable absences from organisations who were invited and would have undoubtedly added a lot to the day but chose not to attend including Friends of the Earth who stated amongst other reasons that the participant list was too strongly skewed to industry although industry representatives were in fact by far the smallest group in attendance This was perhaps a demonstration of how preconceived biases and values may influence the decisions not just of the general public but of organisations engaged in the public debate on nanotechnology

Keywords: