Dialogue-Based Public Engagement with Nanotechnology
- PDF / 512,019 Bytes
- 7 Pages / 612 x 792 pts (letter) Page_size
- 72 Downloads / 228 Views
1105-OO01-03
Dialogue-Based Public Engagement with Nanotechnology Argiri Aggelopoulou1, Victoria Kramer2, J. Ryan Reynolds3, Colin Townsend4, and Chris Toumey5 1 Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208 2 Mass Communications, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208 3 Sociology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208 4 Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208 5 USC NanoCenter, University of South Carolina, 1212 Greene St., Columbia, SC, 29208 ABSTRACT Theory and experience emphasize that science communications between experts and nonexperts should be dialogue, not monologue. This principle guides a program of public engagement with nanotechnology at the University of South Carolina. It enables the participants to express their values and concerns to experts, and to question them. It is intended that the knowledge and confidence generated by this program will enhance the participants’ ability to have active and constructive roles in nanotech policy. INTRODUCTION In December 2003, the U.S. National Science Foundation convened a workshop on societal implications of nanotechnology. Three troubling themes arose: (1) that public awareness of nanotechnology was almost nonexistent; (2) that polarizing visions of nanotech were well established, and would dominate the ideological landscape in lieu of balanced or centrist visions; and, (3) that communications regarding nanotechnology must not be one-way messages from experts to nonexperts, but should be dialogues in which nonexperts can question the experts and express their values and concerns. That third point emerges from a series of experiences, experiments and theories about the roles of the non-expert public in science and technology policy processes. Oneway communications from experts to non-experts tend to be misguided, ineffective, and sometimes counter-productive. CONTEXT In the American experience, John Dewey argued that when citizens think scientifically, democracy and science benefit each other [1]. But this requires a wellinformed citizenry. Jon D. Miller has measured scientific literacy across three decades, and his results show that it is consistently very low [2, 3]. There are some exceptions and improvements, but we conclude that it is unlikely that large proportions of Americans will be well informed about nanotechnology [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. At the same time, four observations point to constructive roles for nonexperts in science policy. First, stakeholder democracy indicates that for any given issue, some people will decide to become active [10, 11, 12], even if most are uninterested and inert. Secondly, studies show that nonexperts can acquire and comprehend scientific
knowledge when they have to in order to participate in science policy [13, 14]. Third, informal science education is especially effective because it is self-motivated [15]. Miller has noted that this is one of the most powerful sources of scientific literacy, and it is easier to experiment with than other variables [3]. Experi
Data Loading...
