Report on UK NanoJury

This was interesting on many levels. I felt the following results should be noted.
1. There should be more openness on where public money is spent on nanotechnology research. The government should set up partnerships with nations leading in those technologies that can improve health.
2.All manufactured nano-particles should be labeled in plain English, classified and tested for safety as it they were a new substance.
3.Manufactured nano-particles should be tested in controlled environments before they are let into the environment.
4.Scientists should improve their communication skills.

The preliminary findings of the UK NanoJury were presented on September 21, 2005 at The Guardian in London. I attended as did 40 others, some from other countries, esp. France. At the meeting were four jurors, coordinators, and some advisers. The jury took place in Halifax and the other particulars have been reported elsewhere.

Becky Willis chaired the oversight panel and referred to herself as a wrangler. She admitted she assisted in terms of which witnesses to select and in the creation of the information packets. She found the event transformative and hopes it represented the beginning on a more deliberative approach to policy making.

Bano Murtuja, a facilitator, reported the jury was composed from electoral registers and was supplemented by other sources, i.e., community groups, etc. There was a training process that occurred when the jurors first considered the issue of youth crime before moving onto a discussion of nanotechnology. A nice touch was red cards that were raised when witnesses used jargon without explaining themselves.

Jaz Singh, another facilitator, discussed the sectioning, brainstorming, and role-playing processes.

A video of the event followed.

Next the four jurors were introduced.

Bill reported his support for most technology, esp. as it impacted health. He was especially concerned that the benefits should be distributed without discrimination based on ability to pay.

Rachel reported her support for technology relating to IT and communication. She did admit feeling patronized by the nanotechnology witnesses and admitted confusion when witnesses contradicted each other.

Elias reported his support for technology that would bring jobs to the UK.

Richard discussed the importance of labeling all nano-particles in plain English and referenced the use of zinc oxides in sunscreens. He also discussed concern regarding the release of nano-particles either in the testing phase or as remediation.

Tom Wakeford (PEALS – Newcastle) admitted the areas of reporting were not comprehensive, questioned whether replication of the event would be wise, the demographics did not attend to the physically or ably-challenged and especially the young who do not appear on electoral lists, the jury was concerned about being appeased, and noted there was NO support for a moratorium coming from this group. Singh added later that influence on selecting the witness pool needs to be reduced, the drop-out rates needed to be reduced as well (when the jury transitioned to nano from youth crime, there were drop-outs), and while he thought working with the jurors again might be profitable he mentioned “consultation fatigue” (something I will research later).

The advisers followed and overall they were impressed and were quite well informed.

Mark Welland (Cambridge) expressed the scientists have the same concerns as the public and the public domain needs to be included in decision making. He expressed concern that the process not be assigned to history per se. While pleased with the process, he said credibility and impact of the experiment must be witnessed by government taking the findings seriously.

Doug Parr (Greenpeace) referenced the GMO debacle and emphasized the importance of involvement.

Adrian Butt (DTI) emphasized debate at an early stage (upstream), applauded the courageous spirit of the group, Most importantly, as chair of the Nanotechnology Issues Dialogue Group, he intended to pass on the groups findings to the NIDG adding a wider social intelligence to what they do.

Barry Park (Oxonica) emphasized nano must be safe and beneficial and emphasized testing must occur now and the action must occur in a global context. (I retrained myself from asking why Oxonica’s nano-fuel additive was tested in Hong Kong rather than in the UK).

Next there were a series of questions and Nick Pigeon (East Anglia) announced he and Rogers-Hayden would be reviewing process much like what they did with GM Nation.

Richard Jones [author of Soft Machines] from Sheffield said the process was challenging and enjoyable. He did mention that there remains a very narrow focus in terms of scientific careers because that’s how scientists are rewarded. A broad view of science is generally discourages.

Monica Winstanley (BBSRC) explained the BBSRC support for public dialogues and worried whether the jury (and other like it) might make a nanometer of difference.

In the afternoon session, Murtuja discussed whether there should be more juries and whether this one needs to be replicated. She challenged Butt to bring these findings (see below) to the NIDG. She also speculated on “best practices” for outreach. There were some caveats to the motions (see below) that are missing in the preliminary report.

Next we broke into discussion groups.


Parr added questioned whether institutions can hold onto the engagement process and the results of deliberation like this jury. (I was in this discussion group and it became clear there was a strong problem with verticality and hierarchy as well as turf concerns that make cooperation across government in the UK challenging. I mentioned the Interagency Working Group in the USA that Roco chaired and how it attempted to deal with these exigencies in the USA). Parr worried in the current deregulatory vortex the UK is in that anything formative might erupt.

Peter Bryant, another jury facilitator, reported from his group. This group also speculated on what role the results will play in policy. There was a brief discussion about Science Cafes (another deliberative strategy). This group appreciated the empowering nature of the process and warned that without enough space to debate nano there could be a backlash.

Murtuja reported on her group and they were assigned to evaluate methodological challenges. She discussed capacities of deliberative democracy through experiments like this one, speculated on opening a dialogue with industry (the weakest partner in the process) and mentioned they have an interest because they want to make money (I refrained from adding “quickly” to the discussion because the long-term nature of paybacks from investment has been an incredibly challenge to VC funding in Europe).

RESULTS

There were RESULTS in four categories but I am going to report them in terms of the level of support instead. Sometimes the level of support included the phase but with some uncertain which I left out below. While some of these issues are not as important to Americans, they are reported below nonetheless. As well, the topics were affected by the choice of witnesses and subjects addressed.

Supported.

1.If public money is being spent, then members of the public and invited representatives of a wide range of organizations should form committee that decides at what stages of research public juries should be set up.
2.There should be more openness on where public money is spent on nanotechnology research.
3.At key stages of the development of any new technology, there should be public juries. More consultation with the public using plain English – those developing the technology meeting the public to inform us.
4.Government should support those nanotechnologies that bring jobs to the UK by investment in education, training and research.
5.Nanotechnology will only be good if they can enable us to have more quality leisure time including times for families and time for us personally.
6.The government should set up partnerships with nations leading in those technologies that can improve health.
7.All manufactured nano-particles should be labeled in plain English, classified and tested for safety as it they were a new substance.
8.Manufactured nano-particles should be tested in controlled environments before they are let into the environment.
9.Any new nano-medicines proven to be safe and effective must be available on the NHS without discrimination.
10.Governments grants for those pioneering the development, manufacture and use of better solar technologies.
11.Scientists should improve their communication skills, including going into schools to encourage science as a career path to all children.

Weak support
1.There should be less ethical controls and government red tape.
2.Poor people should be able to decide the prices of new technologies that are put onto the market.
3.Nanotechnology should only be allowed in they develop wealth for everyone.
4.The advertising standards authorities should be made aware of nanotechnology products where there is uncertainty about health and safety in order that the can prevent misleading adverts.
5.Certain ICTs, such as search engines, maps, language translators and educational sites should be made free to people in serious debt or in poverty.
6.ICT companies everywhere should ration the amount people are able to use their ICTs. When they over-use their communication time the ICT should cut out.
7.Normal citizens – people like us – should decide when nanotech starts getting used in ICTs.
8.Radiation and other health hazards associate with ICTs should be kept low enough so that children can use phones and other ICTs safely.
9.More wind turbines should be put at sea so that we are producing greener energy but are not spoiling the landscape.
10.Nanotechnologies should be used to run electricity cables more efficiently and underground.

FINALLY, Wakeford, Singh,Murtuja and Bryant have put together a draft paper: Towards two-way-street engagement: The theory and practice of NanoJury UK. It is worth reading and is a draft document.