Risks, Benefits and Who Decides?

Last update: January 23, 2010

Overview

Description

This forum asks participants to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of three options. They will also have the opportunity to raise questions about the societal and environmental implications of nanotechnology to a panel of experts.

Participants will work in small groups to form a group recommendation drawing from the options presented—perhaps adding or combining elements, or creating a totally new option representing your group’s view on the issue. They are not limited to the three options presented for discussion. If the group cannot reach agreement on a recommendation, have them identify the items they agree upon and those on which they differ.

Finally, each group will make a brief report to everyone on the group’s recommendations.

Objectives

Big Idea

Given the potential benefits as well as the unknown risks associated with nanotechnology, who should play the major role in shaping its future development and developing regulations concerning its use?

Learning goals

No information available

Audience: 19 and up

Nano Topics: Society, policy, and economics

Forum Overview

Introduction: The NISE Network

The Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) is a national infrastructure comprised of science museums and universitybased research centers collaborating to foster public awareness, engagement, and understanding of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology through establishment of a network that links science
museums and other informal science education organizations with nanoscale science and engineering research organizations. It is funded by a five-year cooperative agreement between the National Science Foundation and the Museum of Science – Boston and its core partners: the Exploratorium and the Science Museum of Minnesota.
Other subawardees have included: Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, Museum of Life and Science – Durham, New York Hall of Science, Sciencenter in Ithaca, Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin – Madison, the Materials Research Society, the Association of Science-Technology Centers,
Inverness Research Associates, and Multimedia Research.

The goals for the NISE Net are to:
1. Engage the public with nanoscale science, engineering and technology through exhibits, programs, media, forums and other kinds of informal educational products;
2. Build a professional network of relationships, alliances, and professional development opportunities between museums and the research community; and
3. Generate essential new knowledge for learning about nanoscale science and engineering.

One of the primary goals is to engage the museum going public and other partner stakeholder groups by helping to bring nanoscale exhibits, programs, and media to as many informal science education venues as possible, with a specific target of 100 venues over the course of the grant. The NISE Net plans to reach this goal by building a network of relationships between informal science education organizations, nanoscience researchers, and professional associations that can work together to accomplish more than any single institution could do on their own.

Nano Public Forums Overview

Download the complete Forums Manual (PDF, 3.9MB)

One focus of NISE Net’s activity is the creation of nanoscale science, engineering and technology public forums that offer participants the opportunity to engage in thoughtful conversations about important issues regarding the potential societal, environmental and ethical implications of nanotechnology. They provide a vehicle for people of diverse views and backgrounds to deliberate on difficult issues and to seek a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

The overall charge to the NISE Net Forums Team is to develop, test, and disseminate program models aimed at engaging adults and teenagers
with informal educational experiences that incorporate discussion, dialogue, and deliberation around societal implications of nanoscale science, engineering and technology. The purpose of this manual is to provide information on how to engage members of the public in thoughtful conversations about important issues in nanotechnology.

The Forums Team (Figure 1) collectively has presented more than 30 forum programs and developed two program models (with different formats and topics) that have been tested at all five institutions, as well as a number of other forum program models implemented at only one or two sites. Going forward, the Forums Team plans to develop one more program model and to create dissemination packages for all three developed
and tested programs. These program packages will be made available on nisenet.org along with information about other program models.

In addition to creating additional program models and distilling and posting the relevant knowledge about producing forum programs, work will be done in the remaining three years of the grant to expand the number of institutions with experience in presenting such programs.

Figure 1. Museum Collaborators in NISE Net's Forums Team

Museum	Contact
Exploratorium	Veronica Garcia-Luis
Museum of Science	Larry Bell
Museum of Life + Science	Brad Herring
Science Museum of Minnesota	Dave Chittenden
Oregon Museum of Science and Industry	Amanda Thomas

Evaluation Coordinator
Museum of Science	Christine Reich

Credits

Checklist

Scientist reviewed check_reviewed

Peer reviewed check_reviewed

Visitor evaluation check_reviewed

Instructions

Agenda

The following agenda is one example that you may find useful when designing your forum. Please feel free to modify it to meet your needs and requirements.

Welcome/Introduction – 5 minutes
- Have the moderator of the forum give an introduction to your museum/institution and to the format of the forum.
- Introduction to the NISE Net and your role with the network if applicable.
- Introduce speaker(s) – obtain presenter biographies beforehand to use for introducing each presenter
Professional Speaker(s) Present Topic(s) – 30 to 40 minutes
- The first speaker should give an introduction to nanoscale science, engineering and technology and provide examples of applications either currently available or in the research and design phase (20 minute max).
- The second speaker should discuss the societal, ethical and environmental implications aspect (20 minute max).
Q&A for any clarifying questions – 5 to 10 minutes
Group Deliberation – 30-45 minutes
- Groups sit around a table and discuss the overarching question and forum scenarios that have been placed on each table before the forum starts.
Individual or Group Reflection/Report Out – 10 to 15 minutes
- Either have each group report to the whole group what they discussed during the group deliberation or ask volunteers to stand up and share with everyone what they discussed.

Program Length

2 hour

Scenarios

Option 1: Leave it to the Experts

Proposal

Since scientists have technical knowledge, and US government officials have the responsibility to set policy, these experts should be the decision makers about funding, research priorities, government regulation, and other policies regarding nanotechnology.
The experts here might include the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, other federal, state and local government agencies, and the broader scientific community.
Consumers will chose what products they buy, and should be informed—for example, through a system of package labeling--about any potential risks so they can make informed choices. Beyond that, the general public does not have the interest nor the expertise to be involved in the complicated, technical issues associated with national policy, and so involving the public in any significant way would be detrimental to the decision-making process.

Drawbacks

Opponents of this approach claim that:

Without adequate public input, the public interest will not be protected.
The research and development agenda will not be oriented with the public good in mind.
Nanotechnology development will not match what the public finds important or acceptable, resulting in rejection of nanotechnology after much money has been spent on development.

Option 2: Leave it to the Watchdogs

Proposal

Non-governmental watchdog organizations, such as environmental groups, consumer advocacy groups, and worker protection organizations, should take the primary role in shaping national public policy on nanotechnology. These organizations already have the know-how and resources to monitor the progress of new technological developments and the possible health and environmental risks. They also have the clout and lobbying skills to handle this complex issue and influence public policy to ensure that the public welfare is considered in public policy decisions and that corporate interests do not control the process.
A few examples of the kinds of organizations that might play this role are Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Consumers Union, and the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.
Watchdog organizations can help the public make informed decisions about issues with potential impact within their own communities, such as deciding about the siting of a new research or commercial facility: will it create new jobs and economic benefits, or create an environmental and public health hazard?

Drawbacks

Watchdog agencies may have an agenda of their own and not represent a balanced consideration of the issues.
Policy debates will be engaged in an atmosphere of conflict with groups staking out positions and with members of the public polarized around the issues.
This is not a proper model for problem-solving and as a result, key problems will not be resolved until some kind of crisis occurs.

Option 3: The Public Decides

Proposal

The wishes and interests of the general public should have the strongest influence on both research and governmental policy decisions. Scientists should pay attention to what ordinary people think, their priorities and values, and incorporate these views in technical decisions, funding choices, and research methods.
The US government, scientists, educators and watchdog agencies should all keep the public informed and up to date on all issues involving nanotechnology, and develop widespread programs to engage the public in dialogue on issues concerning nanotechnology and its potential positive and negative implications, and to incorporate the results of those conversations into policy decisions.

Drawbacks

Opponents to this option claim that:

The public does not have the interest or understanding to participate in decisions about nanotechnology and their vision may limit future possibilities.
Without adequate scientific background, the public is subject to propaganda and misinformation from many sources.
To engage the public in this way, some funds will have to be shifted from scientific research to public involvement programs, resulting in slower technological advancements.
Misinformed public views could slow or derail important scientific and economic development.

Setup

About an hour and a half prior to the event, have the registration/check-in table, photo release form and your pre-registered participant list (if you required pre-registration for the event) ready. Set up and check the AV equipment (if needed) an hour before the event to make sure it is functioning properly. Have the round tables and chairs set up with evaluation forms and any necessary participant materials at each seat.

Materials (Room):

Nametags for participants
Chairs arranged in groups of approx 4-10, preferably around round tables (if available)
Tablecloths
Resource table
Registration table
Pre-registered participant list
Refreshments/Water*
Table for drinks and snacks*

Materials (Speaker Setup and A/V Needs):

Podium
Microphone/Speakers
Projector/Computer
Speaker honorarium*

Evaluation:

NISE Net evaluation forms*
Pencils

*Optional items

Refer to the Forum Manual (PDF download ~4mb) for Advanced Preparations including marketing, securing and prepping presenters, registration etc.

Procedure and Discussion

The following is a brief list of basic nanoscale science talking points intended to help presenters think about the kind of information they should include in their presentations. You may want to send these talking points to your presenter(s) prior to the forum. For information regarding societal and ethical implications of new and emerging nanotechnologies, please see the article Nanotechnology & Society: Ideas for Education and Public Engagement.

Nanotechnology Basics

Nanoscale science is an emerging area of scientific research that encompasses many areas of study, including chemistry, biology, engineering, physics, and medicine.
Nanotechnology will enable new advances in fields such as medicine, computing, and consumer products, and will likely have an effect on much of everyday life.
Nanotechnology has to do with very small things, smaller than you can see with an ordinary microscope.
A nanometer is very small, a billionth of a meter or 10-9 (for example, approximately 80,000 nanometers = width of human hair).
Materials can have different characteristics at the nano scale (for example, gold particles change color the smaller they become).
Along with the new benefits of nanotechnology may come risks that are currently unknown to our health, environment, and society.

Cleanup

Taking down the A/V equipment, bidding guests and speakers farewell, and cleaning up the space can take up to an hour. Satisfied speakers and participants tend to linger and continue to discuss the topic. This is to be expected with a forum. It is helpful to have someone cleaning up while at leasts on other person plays genial host.

Universal Design

The following features of the program's design make it accessible

No information available

To give an inclusive presentation of this program

No information available

1 Resources

Attachment

NISEnet_Forums.pdf

3.69 MB

1 Evaluations

NISE Network Forum: Risks, Benefits, and Who Decides?

View the page for this evaluation report

Major Findings

The formative evaluation of the “Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Who Decides?” forum revealed much about the participants’ learning, motivations, and discussions including the following:

   • Most participants came to the forum because they were interested in learning about nanotechnology and its societal impacts.
   • Before the forum, few participants knew about or were interested in the chance to hear others’ viewpoints through a small group discussion.
   • After the forum, many participants reported valuing not only the chance to learn about nanotechnology but also the chance to discuss it with others.
   • Most participants reported learning about not only nanotechnology (including the science and technology behind it, its applications, and its societal impacts) but also about the viewpoints of others from the forum.
   • During the small group discussion, many participants said there are reasons to trust and distrust experts, watchdogs, and the public because of the influence of money and other issues.
   • However, many participants still discussed the need for many interested parties (experts, watchdogs, and the public) to be involved in the policy decision making process, but that the public needs to get more informed about nanotechnology to be included in this process.

Recommendations for practice

Based on the evaluation findings, it is recommended that educators presenting forums try to do the following:

• Balance the time allowed for expert presentations and the small group discussion because participants find both of these segments important.

• Cover a range of content during the presentations including information about nanoscale science and technology, nanotechnology applications, regulation of technologies, and the societal and ethical impacts of technology so that participants feel they have learned enough to participate in the small group discussion.

• Make sure the speaker feels comfortable talking to the general public and can adjust his/her content to an appropriate level.

• Use trained facilitators whenever possible to ensure that the pros and cons of each scenario option are discussed and to make sure that everyone gets a chance to speak during the small group discussion.

• Do not force the participants to conclude the discussion by picking just one of the options (experts, watchdogs, and the public) as the primary policy decision maker.

• Make sure the participants clearly understand what they are expected to produce for the report-out.

Changes that the NISE Net team made based on evaluation findings

Between forum runs, the forum team made many modifications to “Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Who Decides?” based on the evaluation findings in order to optimize the forum for educators and participants including the following:

• They changed the overarching question so that it focuses on the roles of experts, watchdogs, and public in nanotechnology decision making instead of focusing only on the public’s role.

• They shortened the scenarios and converting them into bullet point lists.

• They gave definitions and examples of groups that belonged in each of the scenario options (experts, watchdogs, and the public).

• They made sure to let participants know they can think beyond the scenario suggestions when deciding who should make policy decisions.

• They made sure participants understand from the scenarios what they are expected to report out about to the larger group after the small group discussion.

How we evaluated the product

For the formative evaluation, data collected from all five NISE Network Forum Institutions (Exploratorium, Museum of Life and Science, Museum of Science, Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, and Science Museum of Minnesota) included the following:

• 214 registration surveys,

• 282 pre/post participant surveys,

• 8 sets of participant observations,

• 4 small group discussion videotapes or audio-tapes,

• 40 follow-up interviews, and

• 8 educator debriefs.

Recommendations for conducting your own evaluation

The following data collection instruments are available in the Forum Evaluation Guide (link) to help you collect feedback from educators and visitors about the “Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Who Decides?” and optimize it for your institution:

• Registration survey

• Participant feedback survey

• Observation notes sheet

• Discussion debrief form

• Event debrief

• Speaker follow-up survey

Document, added on 05-07-2009

Who_Decides_Forum_NISE_Net.pdf

216.59 KB

Risks, Benefits and Who Decides?

Overview

Description

Big Idea

Learning goals

Introduction: The NISE Network

Nano Public Forums Overview

Checklist

Tags

Instructions

Option 1: Leave it to the Experts

Option 2: Leave it to the Watchdogs

Option 3: The Public Decides

Materials (Room):

Materials (Speaker Setup and A/V Needs):

Evaluation:

The following features of the program's design make it accessible

To give an inclusive presentation of this program

1 Resources

Attachment

1 Evaluations

NISE Network Forum: Risks, Benefits, and Who Decides?

Major Findings

Recommendations for practice

Changes that the NISE Net team made based on evaluation findings

How we evaluated the product

Recommendations for conducting your own evaluation

0 Comments

Questions?

Search the Catalog

Who's online

NISE Net

SECTIONS

SUPPORT