In response to the impetus that is gathering in the UK for upstream public engagement, we analyze the impacts of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report of 2004 on Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. The paper presents an analysis of 24 interviews with stakeholders to the nanotechnology debate. It uses these to discuss the inquiry process and the recommendations contained within the report, as well as to explore and critique the notion of “upstream.” We find broad support for the inquiry, which was positioned by many stakeholders itself as upstream, primarily because of its broad framing and wide stakeholder involvement. A number of both explicit and implicit upstream elements are also contained within its recommendations. However, the interviews also suggest that the notion of upstream engagement is a contested concept with a range of associated dilemmas and tensions. In drawing out some of the promise and perils of moving public debate upstream, the paper concludes that there is a risk of merely replacing the perceived deficit in public understanding of science with a perceived deficit in public engagement with science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashforth, A. (1990) “Reckoning Schemes of Legitimation: On Commissions of Inquiry as Power/Knowledge Forms,” Journal of Historical Sociology3(1): 1—22.
2.
Beierle, T.C. and Cayford, J. (2002) Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
3.
Bjiker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. and Pinch, T., eds ( 1974) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Burton, F. and Carlen, P. (1979) Official Discourse: On Discourse Analysis, Government Publications, Ideology and the StateLondon: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
5.
Collingridge, D. (1992) The Management of Scales: Big Organizations, Big Decisions, Big MistakesLondon: Routledge.
6.
Deville, A. and Harding, R. (1997) Applying the Precautionary Principle. Annandale: Federation Books.
7.
Doyle, T. and McEachern, D. (2001) Environment and Politics. London : Routledge.
8.
Einsiedel, E. and Goldenberg, L. (2005) “Dwarfing the Social? Nanotechnology Lessons from the Biotechnology Front,” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society24(1): 28—33.
9.
Fiorino, D.J. (1990) “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms,” Science, Technology and Human Values15: 226—43.
10.
Fisher, E. (2005) “Lessons Learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI): Planning Societal Implications Research for the National Nanotechnology Program,” Technology in Society27: 321—8.
11.
Flynn, J. (2003) “Nuclear Stigma,” in N.F. Pidgeon, R.K. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 326—54. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
12.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth : Penguin.
13.
Grove-White, R., Kearnes, M., Miller, P., Wilsdon, J. and Wynne, B. (2004) “Bio-to-Nano? Learning the Lessons, Interrogating the Comparison,” Working Paper Series 2004/5. Lancaster : Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University.
14.
Hagendijk, R. and Irwin, A. (2006) “Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe,” Minerva44: 167—84.
15.
Hill, S. (1998) The Tragedy of Technology. London: Pluto Press.
16.
Hindmarsh, R. (2003) “The Role of Regulatory Legitimisers in Policy Formation for Environmental Release of GMOs: Where to Next? Implications for Sustainability,” Paper presented at the Ecopolitics XIV Conference “Sustainability: A New Goal for Human Endeavour?,” 27—30 November, RMIT Melbourne , Australia.
17.
HM Government (2005) Response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Report: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
18.
HM Treasury / Department of Trade and Industry / Department for Education and Skills (2004) Science and Innovation Framework 2004—2014. London: HM Treasury.
19.
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N.F., Poortinga, W.Murdock, G. and O'Riordan, T. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement . London: Routledge.
20.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and Society 3rd Report. HL Paper 38. London: HMSO.
21.
Irwin, A. (2001) “Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences,” Public Understanding of Science10: 1—8.
22.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B., eds (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Jackson, R., Barbagello, F. and Haste, H. (2005) “Strengths of Public Dialogue on Science-Related Issues,” Critical Review of Social and Political Philosophy8(3): 349—58.
24.
Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Joss, S. (1998) “Danish Consensus Conferences as a Model of Participatory Technology Assessment: An Impact Study of Consensus Conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish Public Debate,” Science and Public Policy25: 2—22.
26.
Kasperson, X.J. and Kasperson, R.E. (2005) The Social Contours of Risk, vol. 1. London: Earthscan .
27.
Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (2005) Science and Citizens. London : Zed Books.
28.
Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. and Wynne, B. (2005) “Nanotechnology, Governance and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?,” Science Communication27(2): 1—24.
29.
Macoubrie, J. (2006) “Nanotechnology: Public Concerns, Reasoning and Trust in Government,” Public Understanding of Science15: 221—41.
30.
Mayer, S. (2002) “From Genetic Modification to Nanotechnology: The Dangers of `Sound Science,'” in T. Gilland (ed.) Science: Can We Trust the Experts?, pp. 1—15. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
31.
Mehta, M.D. (2004) “From Biotechnology to Nanotechnology: What Can We Learn from Earlier Technologies?,” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society24(1): 34—9.
32.
Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A. and Singer, P. (2003) “`Mind the Gap': Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology ,” Nanotechnology14: 9—12.
33.
Nordmann, A. (2004) Converging Technologies—Shaping the Future of European Society. Brussels: European Commission.
34.
Nrc (1996) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington DC: US National Research Council.
35.
Ost/Mori (2005) Science in Society: Findings of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Conducted for the Office of Science and Technology, DTI. London: Department for Trade and Industry.
36.
OST/Wellcome (2000) Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain. London: Office for Science and Technology/Wellcome Trust.
37.
Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord , Bridgeman, J. and Ferguson-Smith , M. (2000) The BSE Inquiry Report. London: The Stationery Office.
38.
Physics Today (2004) “Scholars Probe Nanotechnology's Promise and its Potential Problems,” June, pp. 3—32. URL: http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-6/p30.html (accessed 30 November 2006).
Pidgeon, N.F. (1996) “Technocracy, Democracy, Secrecy and Error ,” in C. Hood and D. Jones (eds) Accident and Design—Contemporary Debates in Risk Management, pp. 164—72. London: University College London Press.
41.
Pidgeon, N.F. (1998) “Risk Assessment, Risk Values and the Social Science Programme: Why We Do Need Risk Perception Research,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety59: 5—15.
42.
Pidgeon, N.F. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2007) “Opening up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Moving Beyond Risk Debates to `Upstream Engagement,' ” Health Risk and Society (forthcoming).
43.
Pidgeon, N.F., Kasperson, R.E. and Slovic, P. (2003) The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Pidgeon, N.F., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and O'Riordan, T. (2005) “Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision-making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate ,” Risk Analysis25: 467—80.
45.
Post (1995) Plant Biotechnology: A Consensus. Report 56. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
46.
Post (2001) Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology. Report 153. London : Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
47.
Rayner, S. (2003) “Democracy in the Age of Assessment: Reflections on the Roles of Expertise and Democracy in Public-sector Decision-making,” Science and Public Policy30(3): 163—70.
48.
Rayner, S. (2004) “The Novelty Trap: Why Does Institutional Learning about New Technologies Seem so Difficult?,” Industry and Higher Education18(5): 340—55.
49.
Renn, O. (2003) “Social Amplification of Risk in Participation: Two Case Studies,” in N.F Pidgeon, R.K. Kasperson and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk, pp. 374—401. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht : Kluwer.
51.
Rip, A., Misa, T.J. and Schot, J. (1995) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter Press.
52.
Roco, M. and Bainbridge, W. (2003) Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
53.
Rogers-Hayden, T. (2004) “Commissioning Genetic Modification: The Marginalisation of Dissent in the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification ,” Unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of Geography, University of Waikato.
54.
Rogers-Hayden, T. and Hindmarsh, R. (2002) “Modernity Contextualises New Zealand's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: A Discourse Analysis,” Journal of New ZealandStudies1(1): 41—62.
55.
Rogers-Hayden, T. and Jones, M. (2007) “Public Biotechnology Inquiries: From Rationality to Reflexivity?,” in P. Glasner and P. Atkinson (eds) New Genetics, New Social Formations, pp. 49—68. London: Routledge.
56.
Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society.
57.
Royal Society (2005) Personalised Medicines: Hopes and Realities. London: The Royal Society.
58.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering ( 2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties . London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
59.
Schiappa, E. (1989) “`Spheres of Argument' as Topoi for the Critical Study of Power/Knowledge,” in B. Grinbeck (ed.) Spheres of Argument, pp. 47—56. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
60.
Sims-Bainbridge, W. (2002) “Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research4: 561—70.
61.
Stirling, A. (2005) “Opening Up or Closing Down? Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology,” in M. Leach, I. Scoones and B. Wynne (eds) Science, Citizenship and Globalisation, pp. 218—31. London: Zed Press.
62.
Toumey, C. (2006) “National Discourses on Democratizing Nanotechnology ,” Quaderni61: 81—101.
63.
Ukceed (1999) UK National Consensus Conference on Radioactive Waste (Final Report). Peterborough: UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development.
64.
Walls, J., Rogers-Hayden, T., Mohr, A. and O'Riordan, T. (2005) “Seeking Citizens' Views on GM Crops: Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand,” Environment September: 22—36.
65.
Wilsdon, J. (2004) “Dialogue is Moving Upstream,” Science and Public Affairs December: 11.
66.
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos .
67.
Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B. and Stilgoe, J. (2005) The Public Value of Science: Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters. London: Demos.
Wood, S. and Jones, R. (2003) The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology . Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.
70.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2006) A Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies). URL: http://www.nanotechproject.org/index.php?id=44 (accessed 30 November 2006).
71.
Wynne, B. (1992) “Uncertainty and Environmental Learning; Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm,” Global Environmental Change3: 111—27.
