Community Participation in Australian Science and Technology Policy: The Case of Nanotechnology

Abstract

Nanotechnology is widely considered to offer enormous competitive advantages to those countries that possess the knowledge and capacity to harness its potential. As in many other countries, Australia’s nanotechnology policy is in its infancy and lags international research in the field. We examine the role of community engagement in the development of nanotechnology in Australia, and argue that if Australia is to establish a sustainable nanotechnology policy, then it must broaden its perspective and more carefully consider the social, ethical and environmental aspects of nanotechnology. We support the goal of shared economic growth through technological advancement; however, this seems unlikely as long as the Australian government persists with what is essentially a technical and socially exclusive approach to stimulating innovation in nanotechnology. While opposition to nanotechnology is still ‘thin on the ground’, it is starting to emerge and the Commonwealth and State governments would do well to treat it with respect.

Keywords:

• community engagement
• nanotechnology
• science policy

Notes

1. Michael E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London, 1990.

2. The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, 2004, p. 5. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm, accessed 25 August 2006.

3. R. Schibeci and J. Harwood, ‘Stimulating authentic community in volvement in biotechnology policy in Australia’, Public Understanding of Science, 16, 2, 2007, pp. 244–55.

4. R. A. Schibeci, J. M. Harwood and H. Dietrich, ‘Community involvement in biotechnology policy? The Australian experience’, Science Communication, 27, 1, 2006, pp. 429–45.

5. For example, S. Benn, ‘Managing toxic chemicals in Australia: a regional analysis of the risk society’, Journal of Risk Research, 7, 4, 2004, pp. 399–412.

6. See, for examples, J. Bush, S. Moffatt and C. E. Dunn, ‘Keeping the public informed? Public negotiation of air quality information’, Public Understanding of Science, 10, 2, 2001, pp. 213–29; P. Taylor‐Gooby, ‘Social divisions of trust: scepticism and democracy in the GM Nation? debate’, Journal of Risk Research, 9, 1, 2006, pp. 75–95.

7. See, for examples, Frank Fischer, Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge, Duke University Press, Durham, 2002; William R. Freudenburg, ‘Can we learn from failure? Examining US experiences with nuclear repository siting’, Journal of Risk Research, 7, 2, 2004, pp. 153–69.

8. See, for examples, H. Catt and M. Murphy, ‘What voice for the people? Categorising methods of public consultation’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 38, 3, 2003, pp. 407–21; A. Davison and R. A. Schibeci, ‘The consensus conference as a mechanism for community responsive technology policy’, Melbourne Studies in Education, 41, 2000, pp. 47–59; D. M. Konisky and T. C. Beierle, ‘Innovations in public participation and environmental decision making: examples from the Great Lakes region’, Society and Natural Resources, 14, 2001, pp. 815–26; M. Nishizawa and O. Renn, ‘Responding to public demand for assurance of genetically modified crops: case from Japan’, Journal of Risk Research, 9, 1, 2006, pp. 41–56.

9. C. S. King, K. M. Feltey and B. O. Susel, ‘The question of participation: toward authentic public participation in public administration’, Public Administration Review, 58, 1998, p. 324.

10. R. A. Irwin and J. Stansbury, ‘Citizen participation in decision‐making: is it worth the effort?’, Public Administration Review, 64, 2004, pp. 58–60.

11. L. Crase, B. Dollery and J. Wallis, ‘Community consultation in public policy: the case of the Murray–Darling Basin of Australia’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 40, 2, 2005, p. 226.

12. L. Carson and B. Martin, ‘Random selection of citizens for technological decision making’, Science and Public Policy, 29, 2002, pp. 105–13.

13. King et al., op. cit., p. 324.

14. Council for Science and Technology, Policy through Dialogue: Informing Policies Based on Science and Technology, 2005. Available at: http://www2.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/files/policy‐through‐dialogue/report.pdf, accessed 23 August 2007.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Department of Industry, Technology and Resources, A Discussion Paper on Issues to be Considered in a National Nanotechnology Strategy, 2006, pp. 4–5. Available at: http://nano.foe.org.au/filestore2/download/92/Nanotechnology%20Taskforce%20discussion%20paper%2001.04.06.pdf, accessed 24 August 2006.

18. Ibid, p. 5.

19. Ibid, p. 3.

20. Ibid, p. 2.

21. Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Nanotechnology—The Technology of the 21st Century: The Economic Impact of Emerging Nanometre Scale Technologies, 1999. Available at: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/10B0670A‐DE96‐4BB7‐A5CB‐58B9687BC699/1982/Nanotech.pdf, accessed 24 August 2006.

22. Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Nanotechnology: Enabling Technologies for Australian Innovative Industries, 2005, p. 34. Available at: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/1E1B501A‐727A‐4153‐85EF‐134B2DAF0925/4112/nanotechnology_pmseic110305.pdf, accessed 24 August 2006.

23. CSIRO, Social and Economic Integration Emerging Science Initiative, no date. Available at: http://www.csiro.au/proprietaryDocuments/SEI_Flyer.pdf#search=%22Social%20and%20Economic%20Integration%20Emerging%20Science%20Initiative%22, accessed 24 August 2006.

24. W. Mee, R. Lovel, F. Solomon, A. Kearns, F. Cameron and T. Terry, Nanotechnology: The Bendigo Workshop, CSIRO Minerals Report DMR–2561, 2004, pp. 3–4. Available at: http://www.minerals.csiro.au/sd/pubs/Public%20report.pdf, accessed 24 August 2006.

25. E. Katz, R. Lovel, W. Mee and F. Solomon, Citizens’ Panel on Nanotechnology: Report to Participants, CSIRO Minerals Report DMR–2673, 2005, p. 2. Available at: http://www.minerals.csiro.au/sd/pubs/Citizens_Panel_Report_to_Participants_April_2005_final_110.pdf, accessed 24 August 2006.

26. Mee et al., op. cit., p. 12.

27. Katz et al., op. cit., pp. 11–2.

28. This conclusion was also drawn by D. M. Bowman and G. A. Hodge, ‘Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: some international observations’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 27, 2, 2007, pp. 118–32, who described the introduction of nanotechnology in Australia as ‘conservative, corporate‐oriented’ and the approach to stimulating public dialogue as ‘minimalist’.

29. Stephen Bell, Australian Manufacturing and the State: The Politics of Industry Policy in the Post‐War Era, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 146–56.

30. See, for examples, C. Aulich and J. O’Flynn, ‘John Howard: the great privatiser?’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 42, 2, 2007, pp. 365–81; S. Svensen and J. Teacher, ‘Restructuring the Australian state: a bipartisan agenda?’, Public Management Review, 1, 3, 1999, pp. 329–48.

31. Schibeci et al., op. cit.

32. Peter Bridgman and Glyn Davis, The Australian Policy Handbook, 2nd edition, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, 2000, p. 48.

33. N. Tyler, ‘Practical experience of public participation: evidence from methodological experiments’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Research, 16, 3, 2003, pp. 253–70.

34. Ibid, pp. 255–6.

35. S. Arnstein, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 1969, pp. 216–24.

36. Tyler, op. cit., p. 256.

37. Ibid, pp. 257–8.

38. H. Dietrich and R. Schibeci, ‘Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia’, Public Understanding of Science, 12, 4, 2003, pp. 381–401.

39. Schibeci et al., op. cit.