Skip navigation | Menu | Site Map | Home page | Graphics version
This is what we have discovered so far about public and scientists’ attitudes towards nanotechnologies from the feedback received at previous Small Talk events, by questioning event participants, organisers and speakers. We will be using the results of this feedback to guide the direction of debate in future Small Talk events and hope that other event organisers will draw upon them for examples of the aspirations and concerns of scientists and the public.
Small Talk held its first event, ‘Nanotechnology: can something so tiny promise something so big?’ on Monday 1 November 2004, at the Royal Institution in London. 150 people attended the event, which was targeted at adults. After an introduction by the chair, each of the three speakers gave 10-15 minute presentations, allowing 30 minutes for audience discussion at the end.
o Most people said that personal interest was their reason for attending, and a number said they had attended because they ‘wanted to learn’ about nanotechnologies.
o When asked what they would say to scientists and science ministers about nanotechnologies, many people replied that they should keep the public informed and listen to public opinion. Some people thought that ministers should listen more to both scientists and the public.
o Some people were keen to see the UK as a world leader in nanotechnologies and urged the government to increase its funding and support of research.
o Others urged scientists and science ministers to consider the social and political implications of nanotechnologies research. In particular, the risk of a growing gap between first and third world countries was mentioned.
o Risk was a popular topic. Some people thought there was too much emphasis on risk and regulation, but others thought that risk assessment should be considered more by scientists.
o The main risks identified were environmental, military applications, unforeseen risks and the difficulty in controlling nanotechnologies.
o The main benefits identified were medical and health, communications downsizing, and unknown benefits.
o Some other concerns were that nanotechnologies be used for the public benefit rather than just commercial gain and the implications for public privacy and civil liberties
“In order to involve the public in a way that will avoid the confusion that appeared around GM technology, as well as explaining what the technology and its safeguards are, scientists must also explain why it's necessary for the future, not just today.”
“One person said that it seems as though the government is not leading the way both in developing the technologies and ensuring the safeguards. It seems as though the corporates are setting the agenda.”
“Much of the discussion focused on what a nanoparticle actually is. If it's so small and you can't see it, how do you work with it? How do you store it? What's the difference between nanoparticles and particle physics?”