Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia

Abstract

There are increasing calls internationally for the development of regulation and policies related to the rapidly growing nanotechnologies sector. As part of the process of policy formation, it is widely accepted that deliberative community engagement processes should be included, enabling publics to have a say about nanotechnologies, expressing their hopes and fears, issues and concerns, and that these will be considered as part of the policy process. The Australian Federal and State governments have demonstrated a commitment to these ideals, undertaking a number of public engagement activities in recent years. However, despite promises that these community engagement activities will enable policy makers to identify complex and contested community attitudes, and that these will be included as part of the policy making process, a closer look at Australia's engagement activities reveals something quite different. Through an analysis of a number of Australia's nano-engagement activities, this paper demonstrates the limits of public engagement related to the development of nanotechnology related policies and regulation in Australia. Our analysis reveals the extent to which industry interests have captured policy makers and regulators, dissenting voices have been excluded from engagement processes, and engagement processes have not connected with actual policy making activities. Reflecting on these limits, this paper concludes with recommendations for improving public engagement processes related to nanotechnologies in Australia.

Risk Analysis of Nanomaterials: Exposing Nanotechnology's Naked Emperor

“…In principle, improving and enhancing public engagement has value and importance both for democratizing science and technology and providing an alternative epistemology for its regulation. However, public engagement activities that have been performed on nanotechnologies to date have unfortunately tended to also operate within a discourse of risk and be confined to the terms of risk regulation, have very little direct connection to policy making, and largely be oriented toward building public acceptance for what is perceived as a potentially controversial technology (Delgado, Kjolberg, & Wickson, 2011;Lyons & Whelan, 2010). This means that although this approach may perform better in terms of offering a broader epistemological base and potentially enhanced democratic accountability (although this factor would be significantly improved if public engagement exercises were more directly linked to policy or innovation processes), as currently practiced it has largely failed to operate within a wider acknowledgment of the issues at stake.…”

Nanoparticles Restrictions in Environmental Cleanup

“…This illustrates the unintentional and intentional release of NPs into the environment. Whereas, NZVPs are directly injected into polluted sites with organics and heavy metals, humans can be either directly influenced by NPs through exposure to air, soil or water, or indirectly by consuming plants or animals which have accumulated NP [29]. Ontological approaches towards studying and understanding the interaction of nanoparticles …”

Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders’ constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies

“…Three observers of 'public engagement' on nanotechnologies in Australia (prior to the launch of NETS) have drawn attention to the narrow, instrumental focus of nano-engagement exercises, which allow little opportunity for the input of non-experts (Lyons & Whelan 2010, Miller & Scrinis 2010. The authors examined the community engagement activities related to nanotechnologies initiated by the Australian Office of Nanotechnology (which ceased operations in June 2009) and the Queensland Government.…”