Tee Rogers-Hayden and Nick Pidgeon sound a caution
In the UK, Europe and latterly the USA, there has been a burst of ‘upstream engagement’ on nanotechnologies.1 In our view, upstream dialogue is an important innovation. However, it should not be used to recreate a new deficit model, in which objections to aspects of new technologies are seen to rest on a lack of early public engagement, rather than on a lack of public understanding of science as was previously believed.
Upstream engagement is an important innovation which we previously touched upon in a contribution to June 2005 (785KB), when we contrasted engagement on GM with that on nanotechnologies. Upstream public engagement reflects what appears to be a genuine desire to enhance relationships between science and wider society, yet it remains a contested matter both in concept and practice. We want to encourage developments in such science-society relationships, yet wish to caution against simply replacing the old view of a deficit in science communication by a new orthodoxy of a deficit in public engagement.
Our thoughts here draw on a number of our projects related to engagement on nanotechnologies, including observation of NanoJury UK and interviews with stakeholders following publication of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's 2004 report.(2)
Dialogue about emerging technologies
‘Upstream engagement’ is a catchphrase encapsulating efforts to engage members of the (multiple) publics and stakeholders in dialogue about emerging technologies, before R&D trajectories have become established.
While the term has gained wide currency, it is often merely used in contrast to ‘downstream’ dialogue. This typically occurs too late in the process to have significant influence.
Although this shorthand might have over-simplistic connotations of a linear process of technology development, it is not intended to imply that technologies develop in anything but a multitude of ways. The tensions within the notion of upstream engagement which we touch upon here are first, that there are a variety of interpretations about its purpose; and second, that there are differing approaches to the role of public involvement in technology development.
Deficits and interactions
The first tension revolves around the purpose of engaging various publics early in debate. Early involvement means, almost by definition, that public opinion about nanotechnologies has yet to develop, so public engagement is seen both as having the advantage or disadvantage – depending on one’s viewpoint – of being used to shape emerging discussions about nanotechnologies and their acceptability.
In the 1980s, public understanding of science supposed that objections to technologies rested on a deficit in public knowledge.(3) Enthusiasts for upstream engagement might now argue that a diversity of perspectives on technologies rests on a deficit in public engagement. Thus, upstream engagement might simply be replacing one model of one-way science communication with another.
The second issue involves the perceived role of the public in upstream dialogue. Early discussions have the potential benefit of moving beyond a focus on the impacts of existing technologies on people, to discuss interactions between society and new technologies. It’s a small but significant word change from downstream social and ethical ‘impacts’ to upstream public ‘interactions’ with the technologies. However, without an emphasis on interactions rather than impacts, the role of the publics in relation to nanotechnologies is always likely to be confined to deliberating issues around the downstream or post-production phase.
Hidden assumptions
Taking the upstream metaphor seriously provides an opportunity for moving away from a discussion of technology impacts, to debate wider visions of the relationship between technology and society.
It also means assessing how suitable technologies might be for society, rather than assuming that society passively accepts technologies to be value- and power-neutral and thus ‘given’. What this might in turn open up is more explicit analysis of the often-hidden assumptions about the power relationships between technologies and society.
It would acknowledge that there are multiple paths technologies could take, that are not always visible: in particular,
Early engagement reveals power relationships
the power relations a technology embodies, and the balance between corporate and civil society interests and control. Upstream engagement may thus provide a means of focusing on topics which typically remain outside traditional discussions of the trajectory and conduct of science.
Focusing on the interactions between science and society, upstream dialogue may even lead to even greater differences of opinion than seen with downstream issues, as debate revolves around visions for the future of society and the role technologies will play in this. It is a sobering thought that upstream engagement may be more difficult to implement than traditional forms of public dialogue with science!
References
1. Involve (2007). Democratic Technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnologies Engagement Group (NEG) www.involve.org.uk/negreport
2. T. Rogers-Hayden & N. Pidgeon (2007) Moving Engagement ‘Upstream’? Nanotechnologies & the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s Inquiry, Special Issue, Public Understanding of Science. 16, 345-364
3. A. Irwin and B. Wynne, eds (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Tee Rogers-Hayden is at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
Professor Nick Pidgeon is at the School of Psychology at Cardiff University