Nanotechnology

Civil Engagement Versus Social Engineering:
What Can be Learned from NanoJury UK

Michele Mekel, J.D., M.B.A., M.H.A.
Executive Director/Legal Fellow
Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future

Although nanotechnology is pervasive in scientific circles, it has only just begun to cross the public's radar screen here in the United States and around the world. But, as nanotechnology moves from under the microscope into the mainstream at an ever-accelerating pace and as the citizenry begins to take notice of this nascent technology that promises everything from revolutionizing the economy to curing intractable diseases, understanding public sentiment toward nanotechnology and the societal issues it raises is critical to the formulation of appropriate nanopolicy.

NanoJury UK: An Overview
In line with notions of democracy, public trust and acceptance can and should only be achieved by giving people a voice in nanopolicy development rather than engaging in social engineering.¹ Acknowledging this fundamental tenet of democratic society, a consortium of universities and public interest groups in the United Kingdom² hosted a citizens' jury known as "NanoJury UK"³ during the summer of 2005 and publicly released the jury's "verdict" on nanotechnology in September 2005. The jury consisted of approximately 20 individuals from diverse backgrounds who heard "testimony" from nanotechnology "expert witnesses" in different fields and with a wide range of perspectives over the course of five weeks.⁴ Among these experts were scientists, representatives from environmental groups, governmental economic development specialists, and technology licensing consultants.⁵ Following the testimony, the jurors retired to deliberate and came back with their "verdict" in the form of recommendations for nanopolicy development in the United Kingdom. The recommendations call for: testing of manufactured nanoparticles, focusing public funding for nanotechnology on health and environmental issues, being open about public funding for nanotechnology research, and supporting nanotechnology applications that create economic growth.⁶

NanoJury UK: An Appealing Approach
NanoJury UK is of interest not only for the resulting recommendations but also for its robust methodology. That methodology, pioneered in Denmark in the late 1980s to assess public opinion on emerging technologies,⁷ is known interchangeably as a citizens' jury, citizens' panel and consensus conference, and enables laypersons to engage in informed dialogue about their policy preferences for addressing controversial new technologies.

Well-known in Europe⁸ but still a relative novelty in America,⁹ citizens' juries are rooted in the assumptions that: (1) citizens are entitled to a say on matters that impact them; and (2) members of the public are capable of understanding complex issues and offering relevant insights, when provided with information.¹⁰ The overarching goals underlying these juries are to: (1) inform decision making at the policy level on the issues the public perceives about the technology in question; (2) raise the public's comprehension of and ability to articulate such issues through a combination of education, interaction with experts and informed deliberation; and (3) further the democratic process by nurturing civil engagement.¹¹

While citizens' juries may lack the glitz and immediacy of public opinion polls, it is hard to find fault with their basic assumptions and general objectives. In fact, this is a methodology specifically called for in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which provides for the integration of public input and outreach into the National Nanotechnology Initiative "by the convening of regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizens' panels [and] consensus conferences...."¹² And, it seems that the citizens' jury approach to public participation-based technology assessment is well matched with nanotechnology, as the prospective applications seem boundless, too little is known to quantify potential risks,¹³ and more than half of the populous knows nearly nothing about the technology.¹⁴

Michele Mekel, J.D., M.B.A., M.H.A., is associate director/legal fellow of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society, and executive director/legal fellow of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future.

¹In political science terms, social engineering refers to top-down efforts by governmental bodies and other entities to guide public opinion about a specific thing or phenomenon, such as nanotechnology, in a particular direction.
²The sponsors included: the University of Cambridge, the University of Newcastle, The Guardian, and Greenpeace UK. NanoJury UK, available at http://www.nanojury.org (last visited Nov. 30, 2005).
³See generally, NanoJury UK web site, available at http://www.nanojury.org (last visited Nov. 30, 2005).
⁴Id.
⁵NanoJury Gives Its Verdict, Sept. 27, 2005, available at http://www.nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/9/14/1 (last visited Nov. 30, 2005).
⁶See David Berube, Report on Nano Jury, Nanotechnology Implications and Interactions, Sept. 25, 2005, available at http://nanohype.blogspot.com/2005/09/report-on-uk-nanojury.html (last visited Nov. 30, 2005); NanoJury Gives Its Verdict, Sept. 27, 2005, available at http://www.nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/9/14/1 (last visited Nov. 20, 2005).
⁷David Guston, Evaluating the Impact of the First U.S. Citizens' Panel on "Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy," Prepared for Delivery at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (Sept. 3-6, 1998) in 24 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 451-482 (1999).
⁸See id.
⁹Among the few citizens' juries held in the United States have been: The Citizens' Panel on Telecommunications and Democracy in 1997, the New Hampshire Just Food Citizen Panel Consensus Conference in 2002; and the Madison Area Citizen Consensus Conference on Nanotechnology in 2005 (an abbreviated citizens' panel comprised of 13 Madison, Wisconsin-area residents who met for three days). David Guston, Evaluating the Impact of the First U.S. Citizens' Panel on "Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy," Prepared for Delivery at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (Sept. 3-6, 1998) in 24 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 451-482 (1999); New Hampshire Just Food Citizen Panel Consensus Conference Findings and Recommendations (Feb. 2002); Nanoscale Science & Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin, Report of the Madison Area Citizen Consensus Conference on Nanotechnology (Apr. 24, 2005).
¹⁰See David Guston, Evaluating the Impact of the First U.S. Citizens' Panel on "Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy," Prepared for Delivery at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association (Sept. 3-6, 1998) in 24 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 451-482 (1999).
¹¹Id.
¹²21st Century Research and Development Act, S. 189, 108th Cong. § 2(b)(10)(D) (2003).
¹³See SWISS RE, NANOTECHNOLOGY: SMALL MATTER, MANY UNKNOWNS (2004), available at http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwswpspr.nsf/fmBookMarkFrameSet?ReadForm&BM=../vwAllbyIDKeyLu/ulur-5yaffs?OpenDocument (last visited Nov. 25, 2005).
¹⁴JANE MACOUBRIE, INFORMED PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY AND TRUST 8 (Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Pew Charitable Trusts 2005).