2nd Manchester International Workshop

1

NANOPLATThe future of deliberative processes in
the development of nano-technologies by Eivind
Stø, SIFO Pål Strandbakken, SIFO Gerd Scholl,
IÖW

• 2nd Manchester International Workshop
• on Nanotechnology, Society and Policy
• Manchester, October 6-8, 2009

2
(www.nanoplat.org)

• The aim of this presentation is to discuss the
  future of deliberative processes linked to the
  development of nano-technologies.
• This discussion will take place within the
  objectives of the NANOPLAT a 7FP project
  within the specific program Science in Society.
• The project is a cooperation between University
  of Manchester Institute for Ecological Economy
  Research (IÖW) in Berlin Central European
  University in Budapest University of Bergen,
  Norway Sabanci University in Istanbul Strategic
  Design Scenarios in Brussels and SIFO as
  coordinator of the project.

3
NANO products in European consumer market

• Nanotechnology products are now reaching the
  consumer markets within a large number of
  branches.
• During the last years (2006 2009), the number
  of consumer products using nanotechnology has
  increase from 212 to more than 1000
  (http//www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consum
  er/)
• Products that claim to be nano-products
• Health and fitness items continue to dominate the
  inventory, representing 60 percent of products
  listed.
• More products are based on nanoscale silverused
  for its antimicrobial propertiesthan any other
  nano-material 259 products (26 percent of the
  inventory) use silver nano-particles.

4
Some nano products
5
Deliberation, new governance and the stakeholder
involvement

• The deliberative process is discussed in dialogue
  with two rather similar concepts, those of new
  governance and the stakeholder approach.
• They are both part of a new theoretical and
  political alternative to the traditional
  democratic processes.
• The classical democracy builds upon the ideal of
  one man-woman/one vote, and that political
  decisions within this numerical democracy are
  based upon the power of the majority.
• The new governance, the stakeholder approach and
  the deliberative processes offers alternatives or
  supplements to the constitutional processes, by
  introducing lobbying, negotiations and consensus
  driven ideals and processes.

6
Deliberative processes

• The root of deliberative democracy or discursive
  democracy is not old as a specific concept. It
  was originally coined by Bessete in his book
  Deliberative Democracy (1980) However, it is
  easy to link the concept to the work of Habermas
  (1989).
• For a decision to be called deliberative Renn
  (1999) emphasises that it is essential that it
  relies on mutual exchange of arguments and
  reflections rather than on decision-making based
  upon the status of the participants, power or
  political pressure. In addition, deliberative
  processes should be governed by established rules
  of rational discourse (Elster, 1998).

7
Deliberative processes

• We decided to use the four criteria of Cohen
  (1989) in our review of European deliberative
  processes
• It is a free discourse participants regard
  themselves as bound solely by the results of the
  deliberation process.
• It is reasoned parties are required to state
  reasons for proposals
• Participants in the deliberative process are
  equal
• Deliberation aims at rational motivated
  consensus.
• It is easy to understand that it is difficult to
  reach these goals and ideals in praxis the
  political discourse uses many arguments that
  dont meet these ideals
• Do we exclude important processes with this
  narrow definition?

8
Deliberative processes?

• We have excluded interesting processes within
  research programmes from the project. They
  certainly contribute to deliberation, but the
  main goal is not to involve citizens but to
  increase knowledge and understanding
• We have also excluded interesting stakeholder
  initiatives from our list, because the
  participants are not free, they are representing
  specific interests
• One exception is the European standardisation
  process, highlighted in by the evaluators

9
An evaluation of selected deliberative processes

• NanoBioRAISE (EU)
• Nanologue project (EU)
• CoC for Responsible NST Research (EU)
• Standardisation (EU)
• PubliFocus (CH)
• Consumer Conference on Nanotechnology in Foods,
  Cosmetics and Textiles (DE)
• Citizens nano conference (DK)
• Citizens Conference on the Nanotechnologies, Ile
  de France (FR)

• Conferences Cycle on Nanotechnology Nanomonde
  (FR)
• Public Consultation on Nanotechnology for
  Healthcare (UK)
• Nanodialogues (UK)
• Nanotechnology Citizen Conference (US)
• National Citizens Technology Forum (US)
• Website of the Meridian Institute (US)

10
Main findings Main findings

• Wide spectrum of organisations driving
  deliberative processess on nanotechnologies
• Academia, policy consultants and policy advising
  research bodies (e.g., Danish Technology Board),
  professional engagement facilitators and public
  authorities
• Different purposes on which deliberations are
  enacted
• identification and assessment of public attitudes
  towards a certain technology,
• about experimenting with a new form of public
  dialogue in order to learn about its potentials
  and shortcomings,
• about informing a specific decision, e.g. on
  research funding programs,
• The clearer the (stated) goals of a deliberative
  process and, hence, the role of the
  stakeholders/citizens involved the bigger its
  potential benefit

11
The Danish Board of Technology

• In 2004 the Danish Technology Board carried out a
  citizens nano conference
• The 29 participants were ordinary people from the
  Copenhagen area without any knowledge in
  nano-science and nanotechnology.
• They were sent a preparatory document prior to
  the event.
• At the conference itself two introductory
  speeches from scientists made the citizens
  further familiar with the topic and enabled group
  discussions a
• The three-hour event closed with participants
  filling in a questionnaire.
• Their responses were a general positive attitude
  toward nanotechnologies, but also the wish to
  increase research on risks and ethics.
• The Danish research ministry used the results
  from this process in elaborating its plan for
  research on nanotechnology and nano-science

12
Paris Ile de France

• The event called Conference de Citoyens sur les
  Nanotechnologies the Citizens Conference on
  the Nanotechnologies, was organised for the
  Regional council of Ile de France
• It lasted from autumn 2006 to late January 2007
  and 16 participants went through a series of
  meetings and lectures,
• The outcomes of the conference came in two
  events.
• First, the group formulated important questions
  for key politicians, scientists and business
  leaders to answer.
• Second, they produced some recommendations to the
  council, partly based on these answers. The
  values were
• Freedom of research
• An accountable industry
• Transparency towards the consumers

13
Main findings

• Content
• Consumer products are not very often at the focus
  of the deliberative processes reviewed
• Organisation
• organisation of a deliberative process is a
  costly exercise
• different forms of deliberate processes are used
• from a two hour card game on nanotechnologies,
  one evening events (mostly information and
  discussion with experts), focus group discussions
  of three hours length to processes running over
  half a year with three weekends (face to face)
  and interaction between the meetings

14
Mapping of processes
15
Main findings

• Participation, citizens involvement
• Wide demographic coverage
• Demographic bias of laymen towards better
  educated ones?
• How important is financial compensation for
  ensuring commitment?
• Reasoned process
• variety of tools employed to stimulate
  interaction
• scientific evidence is usually provided by
  different experts covering a diversity of
  backgrounds (inter-disciplinarily)
• variety of opinions is ensured by involving
  experts with different backgrounds and a
  diversity of laymen
• room for mutual learning correlates with the
  duration of actual deliberation
• on average good level of transparency

16
Main findings

• Results
• direct and tangible indirect and intangibles
• actual impact(s) of the deliberations difficult
  to assess
• If policy-makers are not or only loosely linked
  to the deliberative process, the actual impact on
  (their) decision-making is obviously very small
• prerequisite for a bigger impact would be a
  description of a clear avenue on how the
  deliberative process is going to influence
  policy-/decision-making often we encountered a
  lack thereof

17
Outlook

• The nano-hype is over. the hype of public
  engagement on nanotechnologies as well?
• While stakeholder involvement apparently still
  common, involvement of citizens-consumers
  declining?
• In the overview of selected deliberative
  processes we have seen a movement from the first
  to the second generations of deliberation. The
  main distinction between first and second
  generation deliberative processes on
  nanotechnologies is most evident in terms of
  sophistication of the applied methodology.
• Second generation public exercises are more
  elaborated than the early approaches.
• What about the third generation?

18
The future of deliberative processes

• In the public discourse on deliberative processes
  in nanotechnology we have identified three
  arguments against further development of such
  processes
• New processes will not create more knowledge, it
  will more or less be more of the same
• An increased use of deliberative processes will
  raise public expectations, and these expectations
  will not be met by occasional processes where
  nobody have a more permanent responsibility
• An increased use of deliberative processes will
  be a threat to the numerical democracy. They move
  the power of decisions from governmental
  institutions to non-representative processes not
  designed to make political decisions

19
More of the same?

• Our review of deliberative processes have shown
  that It is possible to involve individuals, in
  their role as citizens and consumers to
  participate in the discussion of relatively
  complicated technological developments
• Thus, we will recommend to strengthen
  deliberative processes in general, and related to
  emerging technologies more specific. We need a
  third generation where the responsibility is
  moved from the scientific community to the
  industrial applications
• However, these processes should be linked to more
  specific technologies and applications or within
  more specific arenas
• Specific products such as food or cosmetics
• Specific technologies such as nano-silver

20
Weak link to decision-making processes
unfulfilled expectations?

• One of the challenges for the deliberative
  processes is that they create substantial
  expectations among citizens, especially among the
  participants. What will happen with our input?
  Who is responsible for the voice of the public in
  the future?
• Future deliberative processes have to deal with
  these challenges. We have established a platform
  for deliberation of more permanent character and
  this platform may be used in future processes.
  The simple web-tool makes this possible
• The first level of kick-off sessions assumes the
  form of a round table allowing participants to
  debate with peers on a European basis and benefit
  from the exchanges.
• The second level of open revision sessions gives
  access to an up-to-date level of consensus
  between the stakeholders in place

21
A threat to democracy?

• We are aware that there may be a dualism of
  deliberative processes. Influence increase with
  involvement and resources, it is not one man one
  vote!
• The answer to this critique is that we have to
  distinguish between the public discourses and the
  formal decision-making processes.
• The deliberative processes have given a positive
  contribution to the democratic discourses
• This represents no treat to democracy, the
  opposite is actually the case because it
  increases public involvement and represents a
  democratisation of science.
• However, when we move to the formal
  decision-making, - we have to take all decisions
  within the framework of the representative
  democracy where one man and one women have
  one-vote.

22
A new generation of deliberative processes!

• More specific processes,
• more of the same will not create new knowledge
• More closely linked to decision-making processes
• As input to ongoing political processes
• Distinguish between political discourse and the
  formal decision making processes
• The formal processes must be based upon one
  man-one woman/one vote, within the framework of
  representative democracy