In 2005, public investment in nanotechnologies in Australia reached over $AUD50 million per annum [1]. Although this public investment represented only approximately 0.7% of the Australian government’s research and development expenditure in 2004–2005,Footnote 1 the government has noted that the potential of nanotechnologies to transform Australian society cannot be ignored [1], and as such, it has identified nanotechnology as an example of ‘frontier technology’, a National Research Priority. In comparison to other industrialised nations, Australia’s investment in nanotechnologies is relatively small—in 2006, the US government invested $1.78 billion in nanotechnologies research and development; Japan invested $975 million [2]—but Australia continues to develop niche expertise in nanomaterials, nanobiotechnology and medical devices, electronics and photonics, and quantum technology [3]. Despite the potential impact of nanotechnologies on society, research shows that in Australia and other countries public awareness of nanotechnologies is low and public knowledge is limited. Furthermore, surveyed people are generally unsure about the likelihood of potential benefits or risks of nanotechnologies or are concerned that the risks may outweigh the benefits [4, 5]. In Australia and other developed countries, those who claim some familiarity about nanotechnologies are cautiously optimistic about their potential [for example 5–7]. Although the scientific community has embraced nanotechnologies and the significant benefits they promise, the low level of public awareness and knowledge about nanoscience and its applications raises concerns about public accountability (for use of public resources) and public trust (in scientists and regulators).

Given the rapid pace at which nanotechnologies research and development is progressing, and the range of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials already available, it is important to explore the significance of public engagement in the research and development process. In this paper we draw on the Australian experience to examine the role and significance of public engagement in nanotechnologies; when such engagement may be usefully pursued in the research and development process; and what kinds of engagement methods might be most useful in engaging specific community groups.

Public Engagement in Nanotechnologies: Why is it Important?

In industrialized liberal democracies, the development of public policy to support, regulate or develop novel technologies is made more complex because policy-makers are held accountable for seeking a level of public acceptance and “ownership” of decisions relating to ethically contentious technologies. As argued by Sheila Jasanoff [8] and others, citizens now play an indispensable role in generating politically relevant knowledge; their views often are treated as seriously, or more so, than those of professional experts. Standard forms of political representation and bureaucratic decision-making are often considered inadequate in fully articulating or resolving concerns about novel technologies, and so various types of public engagement are used, such as the creation of a “taskforce” or other public body that brings together both expert and lay perspectives, public submissions, focus groups, surveys or polls, citizens’ juries, debates, and consensus conferences. Public engagement can have different goals, including education, gaining public trust in or acceptance of emerging technologies, or influencing the direction of scientific research.

Public engagement in debates about nanotechnologies is important for several reasons. Firstly, policies created in democratic societies should, in principle, be justifiable to all those affected by them, and the involvement of citizens in shaping the outcomes contributes to the policies’ legitimacy. One aspect of this is to ensure that those who will be affected by a policy have access to accurate and testable information on the issues arising from that policy. In a reasonably pluralist society there will inevitably be skeptics about the promises and the risks of developing technologies and the evidence used to support scientific claims. Hence the provision of information about scientific and technological developments will not, and should not, in itself, provide support for science policy [9]. Nonetheless, democratic governments wishing to use public resources to support technological developments and their application would minimally seek to inform and engage in public reasoning about that area of technology, the reasons offered for claims of potential risks and benefits, and to respond to arguments that challenge existing understandings. Where a new technology has the potential to raise concerns about health, the environment or societal values that have not previously been encountered or have not been encountered in a similar manner in the past, policy-makers need to consider whether they have good grounds for assuming that analogies from previous public policy debates accurately reflect a good understanding of both who the range of people are who may benefit from the policy or may have concerns about the effects of the policy, and what those concerns are. Policy-makers need to take steps to ensure that they consider the full range of relevant societal values that are at stake in an inclusive manner [10] given that the development and application of the technology can be expected to impact the society widely.

Secondly, where democratic policy-makers lack information about public attitudes, hopes and concerns regarding developing technologies they are less able to defend policy-decisions as demonstrably democratic [11]. In a reasonably pluralist society there will inevitably be skeptics about the promises and the risks of developing technologies and the evidence used to support scientific claims. Hence the provision of information about scientific and technological developments will not, and should not, in itself, provide support for science policy [9]. Nonetheless, democratic governments wishing to use public resources to support technological developments and their application would minimally seek to inform and engage in public reasoning about that area of technology, the reasons offered for claims of potential risks and benefits, and to respond to arguments that challenge existing understandings. Policies failing to take account of public values run a serious risk of lacking legitimacy and credibility [12].

Third, the use of public funds to invest in nanotechnologies grants publics the right to information regarding how their money is spent, and what the potential effects and benefits of such technologies will be. This is matter of public accountability and fostering conditions of public trust, and a democratic demand for transparent processes for reporting on what was funded and the process for deciding on funds allocation. Citizens are entitled to a level of public scrutiny of the use of public funds of a very different order from the expectations of private business investment. While individuals may disagree about the social value or significance of this or that public expenditure, they ought, in principle, to be able to support the process for determining how public funds will be spent and the conditions of that funding. Where publics suspect that governments are compromised by their financial commitments, both in terms of the funding that a government or party receives from private sources and the basis on which public–private partnerships are funded, they will have less reason to trust without evidence the information and arguments given by those governments to support technology policy or regulation. Lack of confidence in public policy processes, and hence in the trustworthiness of governments and regulators, may be justified where governments fail to acknowledge the legitimate demands of citizens for public access to information and accountability about decision-making.

Research indicates that publics place trust in scientists to communicate impartial information about nanotechnologies [7]. The kind of trust at work here is epistemic trust: that is, the “confidence that another person or group is epistemically co-operative, responsible and reliable such that there is reason to be justified in accepting the statements given as true” [13, p. 54]. Trust may be betrayed in a number of ways. For example, individuals may trust others who are competent but who are irresponsible and fail to act cooperatively; similarly, trust may be misplaced when individuals assume the competence, reliability and cooperation of those who lack such attributes [14]. When citizens find that their trust has been abused or manipulated by public officials they are much less likely to readily restore their confidence in similar authorities on other issues. Therefore, if governments seek public support for technological developments they need to ensure that the trust they seek to gain from the public is well-founded, critically responsive and accountable. Public trust is both necessary for, and an outcome of, effective processes of engagement with stakeholders [15].

Fourthly, evaluations of ‘acceptable risk’ are inherently social, rather than scientific, assessments. Policy-makers seeking defensible regulation of potentially harmful technologies (regardless of their potential benefit) are better able to justify their determination of which risks to regulate, and in what way, where the determination of publicly acceptable risk is undertaken through a process of public deliberation: the identification of concerns, the evaluation of evidence to support claims about risk, and engagement in reasoning towards a defensible policy conclusion, based on the evidence, both scientific and social, that is available. While toxicology and environmental science may provide researchers, regulators and the public with information about the likelihood of damage to organisms or ecosystems from a new technology, they cannot determine what would constitute an acceptable risk in any given society. At best, regulators using information about risk of damage may compare a new risk with existing risks to determine comparable risk. “Acceptable risk” (as the term acceptable implies) is a normative concept, not a scientific measure and it is determined by social processes, not through laboratory tests. In the past many risky activities that were de facto socially accepted (such as risks of passive exposure to cigarette smoke, food contamination, pollution) have come to be challenged, in part through greater knowledge about the causal relationships between exposure and preventable harms, but more importantly because of changes in social attitudes towards the acceptability of the risk. In the case of nanomaterials, their potential threats—and benefits—to human health are largely unknown, and contexts of risk exposure are yet to be fully articulated. Regulatory frameworks which have human and environmental risk assessments as part of their regime will face difficulties given it is not known whether current toxicology testing techniques are suitable for nanomaterials [16]. Because the level of ‘acceptable risk’ concerning nanotechnologies is not yet fully determined, it is a matter for public debate and deliberation.

In essence, public engagement that seeks to meet the demands of democracy needs to occur under conditions of respectful deliberation based on well-placed public trust that public engagement processes will affect policy outcomes, rather than serving as a perfunctory consultation process that at best allows for the venting of opinion [17, p. 318]. Policy recommendations should not only include the outcomes of deliberative processes, but also justifications for those outcomes, thus allowing the underlying reasoning to be open to challenge in light of changing information or developments (contestable justification) [18, pp. 84–85]. Discursive public deliberation involves more than simply the presentation of individual views or opinions; rather, it is the presentation and defense of arguments as a public means of working towards a defensible solution to public issues. This approach involves the legitimation of policy through the transformation of individual interests into a collective exercise via processes of

collective decision making by all those who will be affected by the decision or their representatives: this is the democratic part. Also…it includes decision making by means of arguments offered by and to participants who are committed to the values of rationality and impartiality: this is the deliberative part.” [19, p. 8]

Lessons from the Past

In recent years governments have explicitly sought public engagement in the development of policy and regulation of ethically contentious technologies. Two areas where public engagement has been sought to help legitimate research policy and practice are: the use of human embryos in research in the wake of developments in embryonic stem cell research and cloning; and in the development of mechanisms for regulating, reviewing and developing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (for example, in Australia the creation of the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee through the Gene Technology Act 2000).

In the case of embryo research, the impetus to draw on a range of experts from within and outside the sciences in regulating human embryos research in countries like Australia and Canada arose from fundamental ethical disagreements about the ethical moral status of early human embryos; about the ethical permissibility of destroying human embryos for the purpose of research or potential clinical treatments; and about the likelihood that such use of human embryos would lead to the “commodification of human life” [20]. In Australia, the NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee has been created through the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 to oversee use of human embryos in research. In Canada, Assisted Human Reproduction Canada was created through the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2004) as an independent regulatory agency. Both committees include members appointed for their non-scientific expertise (for example expertise in ethics, law, health consumer issues) and, in the case of the Canadian body, are expected to provide accessible information to the public about assisted human reproduction and advice to the Minister for Health. In the case of GMOs, the role of engaging the public seems to be primarily concerned with identifying and mediating potential risks that may emerge from GMOs, such as diseases crossing species boundaries and so on; promoting deliberation about labeling and tracking of GMO products; and securing public trust in the regulatory system and, by extension, GMO products.

Those involved in the ‘nanoethics’ debate have argued that there are important lessons to be learnt from public engagement in biotechnologies and GMOs when thinking about initiating dialogue with publics about nanotechnologies. In the case of GMOs, the failure of the scientific community, governments and industry to provide enough information to the public about genetic technologies generated misconceptions about the technology, ultimately leading to the public’s broad rejection of genetically modified foods and crops. As such, GMOs have been portrayed as the ‘poster-child’ of misguided public policy, with government bodies, academics and scientists warning that failure to engage the public in debates about nanotechnologies runs the risk of repeating the outcomes of the GMOs experience; that is, the rejection of nanotechnologies [for example 21–24]. The Australian Government has supported the need for public engagement in discussions about nanotechnologies, noting that informed public discussion is important in “cultivating a favourable market for nanoproducts” [25]. However, encouraging public understanding and reflection regarding new technologies for the purpose of public acceptance of such technologies is an improper reason for public engagement [26] and is unlikely to cultivate public trust. Rather, the point of both public engagement in debates about nanotechnologies and research on their ethical and social implications is to increase the public’s level of knowledge and understanding about these technologies so that they may make informed decisions about the appropriateness of such technologies in promoting human welfare [26].

Although nanotechnologies themselves may not raise any new ethical questions [27], the interdisciplinary nature of nanoscience makes such questions, and adequate and appropriate considerations of such questions, increasingly complex. However, some of the concerns about the development of nanotechnologies do raise similar fundamental challenges to some people’s ethical commitments. For example, a central objection to self-replicating nano-bots is that humans may create something that could destroy, or at least fundamentally change, the nature of the world within which we live, and that by the time we notice that it is happening, it will be too late. This fear echoes concerns about the uncontrollability of GMOs. A similar concern arises in the case of bionics or the use of implantable nanoscale information systems that could mean that we fundamentally alter our understanding of what it is to be human, to have consciousness, to be mortal. Less far-fetched concerns that raise less foundational ethical concerns include those about the social impact of nanotechnologies on work; on equitable access to health care and benefits from nanotechnologies; on our attitudes and efforts towards those people with disabilities; on the environment; and on health and safety.

Concerns about the potential risks and misuses of novel technologies, and hence their acceptability, are socially and culturally shaped. While a number of risks have been broadly associated with nanotechnologies—threats to individual safety and privacy; potential damage to the environment; widening of the gap between rich and poor people—governments and scientists need to learn more about the values and beliefs which underscore publics’ assessments of nanotechnologies. Recent research suggests that religiosity serves as an important ‘filter’ for certain publics when they make sense of nanotechnologies, and this filter may help explain differences across countries in attitudes towards the moral acceptability of nanotechnologies [28]. Arguments about the risks and benefits of nanotechnologies are considered by individuals in patterns that reflect their cultural predispositions towards environmental and technological risks, thus polarizing on cultural lines [29]. The upshot of this is that public engagement programs that simply provide ‘scientific’ information about nanotechnologies to publics in order to gauge attitudes towards these technologies not only reinforce the problematic ‘deficit’ model of science communication, but also fail to recognise the complex social, cultural, moral and political resources that publics draw upon to make sense of nanotechnologies. To this end, previous research on the kinds of values that influence attitudes towards other novel technologies – such as genetic engineering [30]—might be usefully drawn upon by governments in framing public engagement programs regarding nanotechnologies.

Public Engagement: When?

The question of when to engage publics in debates concerning nanotechnologies clearly has a significant impact on publics’ attitudes towards, and acceptance of, nanotechnologies and their applications. Involving the public too late in any technology’s development can result in mistrust and ambivalence concerning the role of science and technology and society, which in turn can lead to opposition to products shaped by that technology. The negative consequences of failing to adequately engage publics in policy-making processes were illustrated in their rejection of GM food products across Britain and Europe. There is also a risk of engaging publics too early in the research and development process when there is not enough realistic information to draw upon. The precautionary principle—which states that where there is a risk of serious or irreversible harm, a lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent harm from occurring—has been invoked within the literature [for example 31, 32] and by various community groups [33] to call for a moratorium on nanotechnologies research. However, the precautionary principle is not without its critics [34] and in the absence of clear evidence of risk, the development of nanotechnologies is progressing. Thus, it is important that the public is engaged at an appropriate time to ensure both accountability and well-founded public trust.

In a number of countries and continents around the world, ‘upstream’ engagement is being actively promoted by some researchers as the most appropriate time to engage the public concerning nanotechnologies [22, 35–37]. Upstream engagement means the public is involved prior to significant research taking place and before attitudes towards the technology are established. In engaging the public at this level, it is argued that science policy and research is better informed and more aligned with public needs; science governance is more transparent; and negative preconceptions and cultural barriers between scientists and the community can be overcome [22, 35]. While the use of the ‘stream’ metaphor invites a perception of science research and development as a linear process, it also has its advantages in that it suggests a coherent relationship amongst the overlapping stages of research policy, research and development work, and end use [38]. As there seems to be an open demand for public deliberation about nanotechnologies, upstream engagement provides an important opportunity for the development of a reciprocal and mutually beneficial dialogue between researchers and publics.

In the United Kingdom, public dialogue about nanotechnologies has largely occurred upstream. Some of these public engagement programs included running a series of focus groups (Nanotechnologies, Risk and Sustainability project); a citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies (NanoJury, UK); and deliberative workshops on nanotechnologies and the environment (Nanodialogues). The European Union has facilitated a number of upstream engagement strategies across Europe, including Nanologue, an Europe-wide dialogue on the social, ethical and legal aspects of nanotechnologies; and Nanoforum, a network funded to provide information on nanotechnologies to the European community. Other upstream public engagement programs in Europe include DEMOCS, a deliberative event designed to capture the community’s attitudes towards nanotechnologies; the Nanomonde and Nanoviv Citizens’ Conferences (France); and NanoTruck (Germany), which involved a road-show ‘nanotechnologies’ exhibit vehicle travelling to events at schools, universities and research facilities with the purpose of promoting dialogue between scientists and the general public. In the US, similar processes for public engagement have been initiated by those involved in nanotechnologies research and development. These include Nano Cafes, where members of publics can ask experts questions about nanotechnologies in an informal environment; Global Dialogue on Nanotechnology and the Poor, a workshop which fostered discussion on the implications of nanotechnologies for the developing world; and Forums for Dialogue and Deliberation.

In 2005, the British government established the Nanotechnologies Engagement Group (NEG) to document what was learnt from using upstream engagement methods to involve the public in discussions about nanotechnologies. After reviewing several projects over a two year period, the NEG concluded that while upstream engagement can promote meaningful participation in the research and development process of nanotechnologies, the challenge for governments is to trust the public’s ability to understand and contribute meaningfully to such policy discussions, and to find ways to incorporate members of the public directly in them [35]. Encouraging early public engagement in debates about nanotechnologies is important, but it is equally important that enthusiasm for upstream engagement does not replace the older ‘deficit model’ style of science communication; that is, that publics’ concerns about, and possible objections to, nanotechnologies might be readily attributed to a deficit in public engagement [39, p. 355]. In engaging publics ‘upstream’, it is imperative that scientists and governments educate publics about nanotechnologies and clearly communicate how public views and concerns will be addressed or reflected in the research and development process.

The Australian Context

Current Australian research suggests that public awareness and knowledge of nanotechnologies is relatively low. A survey conducted on behalf of the Australian Office of Nanotechnology shows that although public knowledge of nanotechnologies has increased since 2005, detailed understanding is limited [7]. In spite of this lack of detailed knowledge, most Australians believe that the benefits of nanotechnologies exceed the risks. When asked to choose the most important potential benefit from nanotechnologies from a list of five items, the majority of people surveyed chose ‘improved medical treatment and preventions’. Such attitudes suggest that medical bionics and other health-related nanotechnologies may become the public face of ‘nanotechnology’ and so engaging the public in debates concerning these technologies is particularly important both for the development of these specific technologies, but also for public acceptance of nanotechnologies more generally. However, measuring public attitudes about nanotechnologies in general does not indicate attitudes towards specific types of nanotechnologies and their perceived risks and benefits [40].

This favourable view of ‘nanomedicine’ and its perceived health benefits parallels recent research in Europe, where biomedical technologies incorporating nanomaterials were viewed favourably by members of the public [41]. Previous research on biotechnologies indicated that publics were much more positive about health-related applications than food products [42], a finding echoed in research about attitudes towards nanomaterials in food [43]. Yet, over 100 products incorporating nanomaterials or nanotechnology have entered the ‘food-chain’ market internationally, including products such as agricultural chemicals, processed foods, food packaging and food contact materials [44]. Numerous cosmetic products incorporating nanomaterials are also available to consumers (for example sunscreen, anti-wrinkle products). In the absence of mandatory labelling of products containing nanomaterials, and with the scientific community divided as to the biocompatibility of some nanomaterials (for example, carbon nanotubes), it seems that the opportunity to substantively engage publics ‘upstream’ regarding specific nanotechnologies may have indeed passed.

In Australia, processes for public deliberation on nanotechnologies generally are occurring much more slowly than in the UK and US [45]. In 2003, the Australian government’s primary science body, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), held two public deliberative events—one in a rural Australian town, one in a major metropolitan city—focusing on capturing attitudes towards specific nanotechnologies. In 2007 the Australian Office of Nanotechnology announced the development and implementation of a Public Awareness and Engagement Program. This program aims to increase awareness and understanding of nanotechnologies among the general public, including information about regulatory structures. As part of this program, public forums on nanotechnologies were held in Australian capital cities in late 2007 and continue in 2008. In addition, in early 2008 the government of the Australian state of New South Wales conducted an Inquiry into nanotechnologies in NSW, with its terms of reference including inquiring into the level of community understanding of nanotechnologies and options to improve public awareness of nanotechnologies issues.

In August 2008, the Queensland State Government initiated ‘Nanodialogues’, a pilot public participation activity. Ran by the Queensland Government Department of Tourism, Regional Development and Industry, the stated aim of the project is to learn about the public’s hopes, dreams, aspirations, and concerns about nanotechnology and how they would like to see it used in Queensland. Scenarios based on current knowledge and future hypothetical applications were used to introduce the public to the opportunities, uncertainties, risks and concerns that nanotechnology raises across six areas: health; defence; environment; lifestyle; transport; and food and food packaging. Queensland scientists working in nanotechnology research were invited to participate in the second week of the 3-week initiative, and were asked to comment on their own hopes, dreams, aspirations and concerns relating to nanotechnology. The intended purpose of involving scientists in this public engagement process was to help them become aware of the sophisticated nature of public opinions and values around nanotechnology.

There are limits on the practical applicability of upstream engagement in cases of emerging technological risk and possibility: a careful public engagement process will inevitably lag some steps behind the science. What needs to occur ‘upstream’ is the social and political framework for the conditions for such engagement [11]. That is, the conditions of an educated, engaged public and governments’ and researchers’ commitment to open, accountable, contestable evidence for technological claims. Then, as specific risks emerge or applications become realisable, concrete public engagement with those factors is possible. To this end, we suggest that there needs to be synchronous development of ethics and nanotechnologies within a framework of public awareness and information. “[N]anoethics is not something one can complete satisfactorily either first or last but something that needs be done continually as the technology develops and as its potential consequences become better understood” [46, p. 305]. By encouraging synchronous engagement, publics are given the opportunity to deliberate on what nanotechnologies warrant government support; what kinds of ethical and social issues arise from specific applications of nanotechnologies; and from this, what nanotechnologies may require more regulation before being released.

In order for the synchronous development of ethics and nanotechnology to occur, technological developments need to be socially and historically located. Consequences of technologies cannot be accurately predicted because they are a product of both the technology itself and the social context in which it exists. To this end, real-time technology assessment (RTTA) [47] may be conducive to substantive engagement with publics about nanotechnologies. RTTA involves four kinds of tasks: comprising investigations into analogous case studies; research program mapping; communication and early warning; and technology assessment and choice. By using analogous case studies, frameworks for anticipating societal response to technologies can be developed. In the case of nanotechnologies, drawing on social response to GMOs and biotechnologies can aid in forecasting social attitudes towards specific type of nanotechnologies. In research program mapping, research and development processes nationally and internationally can be monitored, generating the capacity to understand what is going on from a technical standpoint. The communication and early warning part of RTTA involves developing strategies for enhancing the quality of the communication of scientific, social and technical developments. This activity illuminates public concerns about nanotechnologies early and generates knowledge about how these concerns can shape the research and development process. Fourthly, technology assessment and choice has three main functions: to assess (through forecasting, foresight and so on) possible societal impacts of nanotechnologies; to develop a scenario-based deliberative process for identifying potential impacts of nanotechnologies, and to chart paths for enhancing desirable impacts and mitigating negative impacts; and to evaluate the role of RTTA activities on the evolution of nanotechnologies research. In using RTTA, nanoscience and nanotechnologies scientists can contextually frame their research to gain a better understanding of the publics’ hopes and concerns about nanotechnologies.

The field of nanotechnologies is neither clearly bounded nor coherent [48]. For this reason it is imperative that efforts to educate and engage the public emphasise that there is no single ‘nanotechnology’, but rather a range of applications that are made possible by this interdisciplinary field. Furthermore, in engaging publics at different times in the research and development process, the subject of focus of public deliberation can become unclear. Informing publics about developments in nanotechnologies is unlikely to result in meaningful dialogue; simply apprising them of research and development ‘news’ precludes them from contributing to what happens and fails to take account of public values as they relate to nanotechnologies. It also fails to illuminate the significance of the distinction between nanoscience and nanotechnologies. At the other end of the continuum of levels of public engagement, empowering publics with final-decision making seems misplaced given their lack of technical knowledge (can they ever be technically knowledgeable?) and potentially jeopardizes principles of freedom of basic scientific research.

In light of this, we suggest that the most appropriate levels of public engagement in debates about such technologies are the ‘consult’ and ‘involve’ levels of public participation outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Levels of public participation [49]
Full size table

In continually and consistently working with publics at the ‘consult’ and ‘involve’ levels, an open and ongoing dialogue between scientists and publics is encouraged. This dialogue encourages public attitudes and values to play a significant role in the nanotechnologies research and development process, which, as argued earlier, is an important part of promoting public trust.

What Kinds of Publics?

In Australia, there is limited diversity in the publics participating in dialogues on nanotechnologies. The participants in the ‘Citizens Panel on Nanotechnology’ engagement program, organized by the CSIRO, were self-selected: they responded to advertisements placed on online science forums, in an inner Melbourne local newspaper, and on departmental noticeboards of Melbourne universities (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, Melbourne University and Swinburne University), and the Centre for Adult Education. These participants represented members of the broader community and included a number of people associated with civil society groups such as environmental and/or ethically oriented non-government organisation [50]. More recent public forums dedicated to discussing the impacts of nanotechnologies on society, organized by the Australian federal government, targeted members of the public ‘who have an interest, and are engaged, in science-related activities’ [7]. Advertisements for the forums were placed in major metropolitan newspapers, and the Australian Office of Nanotechnology specifically invited science students and teachers from metropolitan schools to participate. In recent Australian research, ‘public’ attitudes towards nanotechnology were based on the responses of 1,100 people dialled randomly [51]. Friends of the Earth Australia has criticized the recent Queensland Nanodialogues Project for lack of representation on the ‘expert’ panel from nanotechnology stakeholders who have criticised, or expressed concerns about, nanotechnology. Australian governments continue to be criticized for failing to meaningfully engage the public concerning the ethical issues and potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies [52].

While governments and scientists around the world are improving their efforts to engage with the community regarding nanotechnologies, the kinds of publics they engage will have a significant impact on the kinds of views and values expressed as part of the engagement process. Some public engagement programs select people randomly to participate in surveys concerning nanotechnologies [for example 5, 7]; other programs select participants by geographic location or demographic information (Nanodialogues, NanoJury, UK). Randomly selecting members of the public to participate in nanotechnologies debates is not in itself problematic; rather it is presenting their views as representative of a ‘public’. There are multiple, and of course polarized, standpoints within society, and therefore not just one perspective on nanotechnologies.

Thus, we argue that current public engagement programs are inadequate in accurately capturing the views of publics because they are yet include those specific community groups that are most likely to benefit from specific applications of nanotechnologies. For example, bionic devices that are designed to address, alleviate or bypass certain disabilities are likely to have a significant impact not only on those people with disabilities who choose to use the device, but also the people who care and advocate for them. Failure to include these groups in debates about such technologies may impact how that technology is perceived, and ultimately accepted by communities. Whilst it is important to garner a wide range of views about nanotechnologies from a cross-section of the community, it is also important to target groups historically excluded from participation in public deliberation, such as minority groups and the poor, who will most likely directly benefit from nanotechnologies. This is particularly so for nanotechnologies which promise to deliver cleaner water or address a range of illnesses and diseases.

We are still in the infancy period of nanoscience and nanotechnologies, yet this interdisciplinary science has significant social, legal and ethical implications that warrant substantive dialogue with publics now. Governments, researchers and public policy makers need to work with publics, including specific community groups, towards creative solutions to the issues and concerns raised by nanotechnologies. While public engagement is a valuable part of the development of a policy and regulatory environment that will meet the challenge of rapidly developing nanotechnologies, it is important that this engagement be carefully designed to avoid what Irwin has described as ‘unsubstantiated words and empty rhetoric’ [17, p. 318]. Educating and engaging citizens at an appropriate time, and at an appropriate level, is an integral step in encouraging proper public deliberation on nanotechnologies and their impact on society.