EU perspectives on the public debate around Nanotechnologies and options for framing public policy

The European Commission is committed to promoting public debate on nanotechnology and believes that public policies need to be responsive to evolving public opinion. Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies, Options for Framing Public Policy, commissioned by the Directorate General for Research, consists of a series of research articles on the nature of public debate on nanotechnologies and the ways in which deliberative approaches could lead to better governance of these technologies.

The chapter on the future of deliberative processes on nanotechnology raises interesting questions about the degree to which deliberative processes related to nanotechnology have increased the democratisation of science and technology. It asks how future deliberative processes about nanotechnology might be developed and deepened.

Through the NANOPLAT project, the consortium of research organisations involved have evaluated selected deliberative processes from the UK, Europe and the United States, including Sciencewise-ERC’s dialogues on the governance and development of nanotechnologies. The projects reviewed vary substantially as far as both resources and use of time are concerned, but they have in common the involvement of individuals in relatively complicated technical matters.

The research identifies key arguments to support the further development of deliberative processes on nanotechnology. The authors see a future in what they refer to as ‘third generation’ deliberative processes in the development of nanotechnology. They highlight that, in the case of ‘third generation’ deliberations on nanotech, processes need to be more specifically oriented and more closely linked to decision-making processes. One of the main challenges for the future they identify is the question of who will take the responsibility for running such processes.  

NANOPLAT develops the case that a more permanent form of deliberation is necessary for enabling an ongoing process of collective responsibility. The authors propose an independent institution as one possible way of doing this, and an online tool for deliberation about consumer product which  could serve as a starting point for an ongoing process.