When I first started working on nanotechnology more than 20 years ago, I spent my time imaging atoms on surfaces, and the term nanotechnology was rarely used. Now, of course, nanotechnology is touted as the technology of the future, with global funding of around $10bn. Nano-research centres are appearing in virtually every university, as are nano-related advances promising to cure cancer and solve the world's energy problems. In this race to exploit the technology, it is crucial that potential risks, hazards and consequences are addressed in a timely and comprehensive fashion. We have learned lessons from other areas, such as GM, where science, exploitation and public concerns have been disconnected from each other.
Ten years ago, when nanotechnology began to hit the headlines, terms such as citizen's jury, public engagement and democratisation of science were grouped together in my mind as a science fringe activity largely patrolled by pressure groups. How much has changed. I am now involved in establishing a citizen's jury on nanotechnology in partnership with Greenpeace, the Guardian's Life section and the policy, ethics and the life sciences research centre at the University of Newcastle, in my role as director of the Cambridge University-based Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration (IRC) in Nanotechnology.
As responsible scientists, we need to debate both positive and negative aspects of nanotechnology transparently and in full view of the public. This jury will have the opportunity to "rule" on benefits and risks of nanotechnology; and the process is an important step towards entering into public debate about this technology.
The IRC in Nanotechnology is a £10m UK Research Councils initiative to establish a concerted research programme between the Universities of Cambridge and Bristol and University College London. This aims to establish the UK as a leading centre for nanotechnology-related research. The academic freedom that an IRC provides is not, however, limited to the pursuit of scientific goals. We responded to the increasing interest in potential concerns surrounding nanotechnology by appointing a social scientist, Robert Doubleday, to work alongside us. This was a real experiment for us, and for Robert. We had to think carefully about what we wanted to achieve.
W e identified a number of aims. The first was simply to provide in-house education. The researchers and students working in the IRC had almost no exposure to the potential ethical and environmental concerns surrounding nanotechnology other than what they had seen in the media. In addition to having Doubleday in our midst, we set up a series of seminars, where there was an opportunity not simply to hear about potential issues but to debate them with their protagonists.
Having such seminars does not simply educate about specific issues, it educates about how issues are raised and publicised, the importance of public engagement and the importance of establishing scientific transparency.
A second aim was to explore how we could engage in the public understanding debate. I initially had two frustrations. The first was that if, for example, we invited schoolchildren into the lab, something we do regularly, then we would be "engaging'" with a statistically insignificant fraction of the public. How could we reach out more effectively? The second frustration was that my sense of what social scientists called "the public" was unclear. Giving a talk at the Cheltenham Science Festival on nanotechnology last year was ostensibly to the public. But a very self-selecting component of the public; they had to be interested, motivated and probably local to attend.
NanoJury UK responds to my initial frustrations regarding effective public engagement, it represents a unique alliance between university researchers in both social and physical sciences, Greenpeace and a national newspaper to put the debate surrounding the future on nanotechnology on a balanced and informed footing. Even if the jury eventually rules that nanotechnology is, ultimately, undesirable, the lessons we will have learned about how science, technology and public understanding can work together for a responsible future will be very valuable.
· Mark Welland is a professor of nanotechnology and is director of the IRC in Nanotechnology at Cambridge. NanoJury UK is being launched today. You can find background information at guardian.co.uk/life/nanojury