Mark Welland reflects on an experiment

On 21 September this year, four members of the public stood up in front of a crowd of press, government, non-governmental organisations and interested members of the public and pronounced their judgement on nanotechnologies.

After five weeks of detailed deliberations and quizzing of witnesses, the NanoJury members provided largely lucid, informed and insightful recommendations. More remarkably, by their own admission, their previous knowledge of nanotechnology was virtually non-existent and they collectively had little scientific experience.

The process itself and the success of this particular public engagement exercise serve to do more than simply explore public perceptions of nanotechnology; it also provides some useful lessons for scientists, non-governmental organisations and government in defining how such activities are managed and what the role of the different stakeholders should be.

The process

A meeting with Doug Parr from Greenpeace in the lobby of a hotel in Stockholm sparked the idea for NanoJury. The process brought together twenty randomly-chosen people from different backgrounds who heard evidence about a wide range of possible futures, and the role that nanotechnologies might play in them.

In a singular alliance, the Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration in Nanotechnology at the University of Cambridge, Greenpeace UK, the Guardian and the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre at the University of Newcastle instigated and managed the process. We drew on a wide range of advisers so as to formulate and execute a transparent and rigorous public engagement process.

Science in a new light

For all of us, this was an innovative and essentially experimental grouping. Personally I found the experience challenging but rewarding. I have learnt considerably from interacting with the various groups involved in the process, have been able to look at my own science in a new light and ultimately, have been hugely impressed by the jurors’ ability to grasp such a difficult subject and make perfectly reasonable recommendations. We ‘engaged’ with the public and the public showed that they had a real voice. And the government took the jurors’ views seriously and have promised to follow up on their recommendations and report back to them.

Scientists must engage

NanoJury must be followed up by other types of engagement processes and even repeats of the one we used involving different population groups. This is already happening and the government is playing a strongly supportive role in this respect.

I am convinced that at some level there is a responsibility incumbent upon scientists and technologists to ensure that they involve themselves in some form of public engagement. I note that about ten per cent of any one National Science Foundation grant in the USA has to be spent on engaging with the public.

Scientists need to take a strong lead in the public engagement agenda.  It is our science that will shape the future and it would be irresponsible not to ensure that science is represented accurately in the public arena and that its consequences, both positive and negative, are openly and inclusively debated.

Mark Welland is Professor of Professor of Nanotechnology and Director of IRC in Nanotechnology at the University of Cambridge