Communicating Nanotechnology en

Research policy
Interested in European research?
Research*eu is our monthly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results, programmes, events, etc.).
It is available in English, French, German and Spanish. A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from:
European Commission
Directorate-General for Research
Communication Unit
B-1049 Brussels
Fax (32-2) 29-58220
E-mail: research-eu@ec.europa.eu
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu
European Commission
Directorate-General for Research, Technology and Development

Directorate Industrial Technologies
Unit G.4 — Nano- and converging Sciences and Technologies
Contact: Matteo BONAZZI

European Commission
Office: CDMA 06/127
B-1049 Brussels
Tel. (32-2) 29-54703
Fax (32-2) 29-86150
E-mail: matteo.bonazzi@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Communicating Nanotechnology
Why, to whom, saying what and how?

An action-packed roadmap towards a brand new dialogue
edited by the European Commission

DG RTD
Directorate Industrial Technologies
Directorate-General for Research

2010 Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies (NMP) 24055 EN
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number(*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*)Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use
which might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the European Commission.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010
ISBN 978 92 79 1341 3 5

ISSN 1018-5593
doi:10.2777/51159
© European Union, 2010

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
Printed on white chlorine-free paper
European Commission
Unit ‘Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies’

Date of publication: March 2010
This publication can be downloaded free of charge from the Internet

(http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology and
http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/publication_events.htm)
The views expressed in this document are entirely those of the Authors and do not engage
or commit the European Commission in any way.
More information on nanotechnology at the European Commission is
available online (http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology).
Text:
Foreword: Herbert von Bose
Preface: Christos Tokamanis
Introduction: Matteo Bonazzi
Author: Matteo Bonazzi
Interviewer and editorial reviser: Kirsten De Victoria
Interviews with:
Herbert von Bose, Christos Tokamanis, Mario Martinoli, Yoel Rothschild, Ulrich Kernbach, Luigi Amodio
Cover page:
Front page (concept): Matteo Bonazzi
Front page (artistic interpretation): BridA/Tom Kerševan, Sendi Mango, Jurij Pavlica
Front page (design): BridA/Tom Kerševan, Sendi Mango, Jurij Pavlica

Everyone is quick to blame the alien.

(Aeschylus)
4
Foreword
Herbert von Bose
Director of Industrial Technologies,
Directorate G, Research DG of the European Commission
You cannot have an appropriate social dialogue on nanotechnology without an open-

minded, consistent and even audacious communication roadmap aiming to bring every-
one in. Good governance depends on it, as the EC had already acknowledged robustly.
The Directorate Industrial Technologies of the Directorate-General for Research (DG
RTD), is now firmly set to push this bold principle towards building a broad consensus to
support the EC’s policy on integrated, safe and responsible nanotechnology.
So appropriate communication comes first, and you need a sound and clever method
here. You need to know whom you are reaching out to, since audiences are many. You
need to envisage the impact you are going to have, in order to make people feel person-
ally involved and eager to know more. You also need to anticipate how you are going
to meet the communication needs of the so called ‘stakeholders’ who have a specific
interest in nanotechnology, of young people who might not be quite aware of it yet,
and of the general public whom the EC wants to keep fully informed regarding research
developments as they come along. All these issues are analysed, structured and pack-
aged in chapters one to three under a new communication model that relates to citizens’
concerns and needs.
Dialogue and engagement are the next, crucial phase. By building on knowledge and
awareness of nanotechnology, this Communication Roadmap comes forward with a
whole system of organised mechanisms designed to prepare the ground for very effective
feedback and exchange with society. This represents the contents of chapters four and
five which set out an ambitious scheme of implementation measures that tests the com-
munications model’s efficacy to deliver its messages to millions of citizens effectively.
This communication exercise should, indirectly, have two major, desirable effects: in-
creasing the consensus between stakeholders, society and policymakers on EC decision-
making about nanotechnology; and strengthening the image of the EC as an impartial,
transparent and trustworthy communicator on nanotechnology.
Innovation and creativity are of the essence here, and indeed the EC wants nanotech-
nology to speak, as a priority, the many expressive languages of Web platforms, social
networks, science centres, multi-platform media news or features and the open dialogue
between scientists and citizens. On top of the conventional printed material, audiovisuals
and event-related materials, the EC is now looking with special interest at the way art,
design, music, theatre and films could enrich the communication of technology.
In this sense, this Communication Roadmap feeds into the philosophy and principles set
out by the present European Year of Creativity and Innovation which has been its inspira-
tion. It is a wonderfully stimulating challenge.
5
6
Preface
Christos Tokamanis
Head of Unit for Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies
The European Commission has been very quick to understand just how hot nanotechnol-
ogy communication is. This sharp awareness has been matched by the strong interest and
real concern of EU institutions, and has steadily produced a growing range of socially
engaged policy documents and dedicated projects over the past few years.
The first, crucial steps that shaped the European Commission’s whole approach go back
to 2004, when the Communication ‘Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology’ (1)
was published, followed in 2005 by the ‘Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An Action
Plan for Europe 2005-2009’ (2). In these political documents, a strategy for an integrated,
safe and responsible nanotechnology was put forward to Europe and the rest of the world.
Here, the EC stated that clearly that ‘societal impacts need to be examined and taken into
account. Dialogue with the public is essential to focus attention on issues of real concern
rather than ‘science fiction’ scenarios.
Engaging a public that might have been inadequately informed so far, or perhaps outright
misled because of the very complexity of the issue, is the core challenge. In these policy
documents the EC observed that ‘nanotechnology is poorly understood. Since it is com-
plex and concerns a scale that is invisible, nanotechnology may be a difficult concept
for the public to grasp. While the potential applications of nanotechnology can improve
our quality of life, there may be some risk associated with it, as with any new technology
– this should be openly acknowledged and investigated. At the same time the public’s
perception of nanotechnology and its risks should be properly assessed and addressed’.
Involving Europeans in appropriate communication and dialogue is a real asset to the

EC, whose aim is to align nanotechnology development with the people’s expectations
and concerns, and at the same time to pave the way for a level playing field in the global European Commission
1
(2004): Towards a
market. Clearly, ‘the public trust and dialogue on nanotechnology will be crucial for its European Strategy
long-term development and allow us to profit from its potential benefits. It is evident that for Nanotechnology,
the scientific community will have to improve its communication skills.’ COM(2004)338; EC,
Brussels, 2004 (http://
cordis.europa.eu/
The emphasis on this could not have been clearer. The EC aimed to implement the Action nanotechnology/
actionplan.htm and
Plan’s mandate by encouraging ‘a better dialogue between researchers, public and private http://ec.europa.eu/
decision-makers, other stakeholders, and the public’, and stressing how ‘beneficial’ this nanotechnology/pdf/
nano_com_en_new.pdf).
would be ‘for understanding possible concerns and tackling them from the standpoints of
European Commission
2
science and of governance, and to promote informed judgement and engagement’. (2005): Nanosciences
and nanotechnologies:
In this light, the Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes (FP6 and FP7) of the Europe- An action plan for
Europe 2005-2009,
an Union for supporting and funding scientific research and technological development COM (2005) 243,
have been playing a pivotal role. They spell out the need for EC-funded nanotechnology EC, 2005, Brussels,
(http://cordis.europa.
research and applications to be responsible and thus respond to the expectations and eu/nanotechnology/
concerns of European stakeholders. actionplan.htm).
7
The initiatives relating to communication, outreach and societal dialogue include many
projects funded within FP6, including pilot projects and international events, and presum-
ably within the current FP7, which will last until 2013.
The need for these communication projects emerged over two years between 2007 and
2008. The main stops along this road were two separate workshops, with a very interest-
ing open Web-based consultation on communication outreach about nanotechnology
in between. These workshops involved the participation of 48 international experts from
the very different realms of opinion-making, science communication outreach, social en-
gagement, design, arts and, of course, nanotechnology.
In this respect, crucial input was provided by the Web consultation, which impressively
built on the results of the first workshop and stayed open for over six months on the
nanotechnology website of the European Commission. This exercise enabled us to collect
hundreds of comments from the lay public, allowing for a wide variety of views, opinions,
expectations and concerns from a broad audience, which were then integrated into the
second workshop.
All this led to the publication of a specific call on communication outreach; and as a result
four Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) on the same topic were selected and negoti-
ated by the end of 2008, with an overall budget of EUR 5 million.
The EC takes this whole communication effort on nanotechnology so seriously, that it

now wants to prepare for an appropriate dialogue among stakeholders about the social
challenges of nanotechnology: this has been the focus of two further publications issued
at the beginning of 2008 and of other projects launched during this and next year, with
special emphasis on television and Web media, as well as on young people.
Reaching the right audiences, with the appropriate message and means is of essence.
All these dialogue efforts will culminate into the European Platform on Nano Outreach
and Dialogue (NODE): it will deal with a specific system of mechanisms to enliven and
coordinate the continuous and open dialogue on nanotechnology within the whole EU
society, empowering both EC and Member States with a very challenging tool for deliver-
ing technical democracy on nanotechnology.
Clearly, continuity is our priority. In order to achieve this, the present roadmap pres-
ents various sets of communication activities and products. Their inclusion into a
robust and integrated framework is expected to increase both confidence and trust in
the EC, thereby enhancing its image as a truly transparent and trustworthy communi-
cator on nanotechnology.
This document presents the focus, objectives, methodology and actions to be developed
in the near future. The main prospective figures of communication outreach and dialogue
are just as impressive: it is estimated that around one hundred million citizens will be
reached over three years, between 2009 and 2011.
8
Introduction
Image is to communication what gold is to a jewel. Though it takes long years to build, the
image of any organisation can be swiftly ruined, even if the architect is talented and the
workers are conscientious. Communicating such an image is indeed a no-starter without
a good, solid communication strategy underpinning this effort. This is not at all about
facade. It is not even about what a Communication Roadmap can or cannot bring to any
organisation. In this instance, it should be about participation, by involving everyone
with an interest in the issues. Meaningful communication creating a relationship and an
exchange between stakeholders seems to be especially needed in the case of nanotech-
nology, where the public is more sceptical and less deferential.
Any conventional approach, so far based on the ‘public understanding of science’ has to
be redressed now. It needs to be turned around into the trickier concept of a ‘scientific
understanding of publics’. These different audiences could not simply stand any tone they
might remotely perceive as condescending. They would just turn you off and tune you out
in no time. Clearly, a new mode of communication is required.
A bottom-up approach based on seeking a constant dialogue seems to be much more ap-
propriate. Here, those striving to communicate the wonders of their science also listen to
the perceptions, concerns and expectations of the audiences and engage into a discussion
with them. Clearly, diverse degrees of interest, sensitiveness, and creativity are needed.
They are a plus, they are valuable. Dialogue requires ears as well as voices – indeed the
number of ears should double the number of mouths, as several ancient traditions sug-
gested in their own time.
Admittedly, the ‘European Ship’ is somehow lagging behind on this. Perhaps this is due to
the fact that there is hardly one communication strategy model which all European cultures
may feel comfortable with. Also, past practices sometimes may have narrowed their focus
on the relationship with media and target audiences too much, or they may have been too
self-centred. Anticipating events looks like a tall order in any case, although Pierre Massé,
founder of French planning, wrote that ‘planning should leave nothing to chance’.
As nanotechnology is becoming more deeply embedded in today’s life, its crucial, poten-
tial opportunities and drawbacks for all society should be explained. But this task cannot
be left solely to scientists or technology suppliers, especially considering that with ‘hot’
issues like new technologies such advantages and risks can often be over- or understated.
The concept of novelty associated with science and technology usually induces a wide
range of contradictory feelings, embracing enthusiasm yet creating mistrust. This ‘crisis’ of
conventional perception is naturally rooted in the response of most cognitive patterns and
behaviours when faced with the unknown, and we should be aware that nanotechnology
strongly stimulates these feelings. This is surely due to nanotechnology’s high degree of
novelty, the difficulties with a clear ‘mental mapping’ of its developments and their hazy
symbolic representation.
9
Not every culture tackles a crisis in the same way. In fact, as ancient Chinese monograms
teach us, the concept of crisis is designed by two complementary icons combining the
representations of ‘danger’ and ‘opportunity’. Novelty in nanotechnology evokes both.
That is the reason why such a crisis in conventional perception requires appropriately
new communication patterns. The core challenge here is about engaging society in an
inclusive dialogue that is able to identify desirable patterns. If opportunities, risks and
uncertainties were properly addressed, surely we would all be far closer to the mark of
reaching consensus. In this light, the best strategy for developing an EC Communication
Roadmap on nanotechnology aims at creating a lively relationship and a continuous ex-
change between EU institutions and citizens.
The present Roadmap feeds on the philosophy of the European Year of Creativity and
Innovation and enriches it at the same time. This Year aims to raise awareness of the im-
portance of creativity and innovation for personal, social and economic development, by
disseminating good practices and stimulating education and research. As a result, policy
debate on relating issues will be promoted.
As creativity and innovation contribute to economic prosperity as well as to social and

individual wellbeing, most EC communication projects, actions and events have chosen
this specific, inclusive approach. Every audience, be it young people, teachers, business,
organisations or – more broadly – the general public, is being called to get involved at
European, national and local levels.
This Communication Roadmap will address all this along three main outlines. First, it will
show why and to what extent the European Commission (EC), as a major body funding
nanotechnology research and development, has the moral duty to communicate with EU
citizens appropriately about the opportunities, risks and uncertainties associated with
nanotechnology. Secondly, it will be structuring an original method, based on policy
analysis and communication theory, to build up pathways enabling EU citizens to be ap-
propriately informed and feed their opinions back to the EC, which will include them in
its decision-making process. Finally, it will design dedicated communication and dialogue
activities and assess their expected impacts.
The present Roadmap is a true ‘first’: no other Communication Roadmap on Nanotech-

nology Research had been designed so far. Whereas communicating is a moral duty,
communicating well is a moral responsibility. I do hope to have contributed well enough
to fulfil this challenge, so that others may pick it up.
Matteo Bonazzi
Programme Officer in converging technologies,
Unit Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies
10
To those whose fears outshine their trust
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Foreword 5
Preface 7
Introduction 9
PART I. WHAT IS IT FOR?

Framing the Communication Roadmap 19
1.1 Nature of the topic 19

1.2 Parameters of the topic 20
1.3 Analysing, targeting and implementing the topic 20
PART II. WHERE ARE WE NOW?

Analysing the relevant literature and EC activities 21
2.1 The current perception of nanotechnology 21

2.1.1 What do the media say? 22
2.1.2 What do people say? 24
2.1.3 What do stakeholders say? 27
2.1.4 What is the general picture? 28
2.2 Key EC policy documents on

communicating nanotechnology 28
2.3 Theory of communicating science and technology 32
2.3.1 From public understanding of science to
scientific understanding of the public 33
2.3.2 From strategic planning to Communication Roadmap 34
2.4 Key nanotechnologies to prioritise in communication 35

2.4.1 Nanomedicine 35
2.4.2 Nanotechnology in tools, devices, materials,
processes for sustainability 36
12
2.4.3 Nanotechnology and Information &
Communication Technologies 37
2.4.4 Uncertainties, hazards, risks and associated
ethical, legal and societal aspects 37
2.5 EC-funded projects on communicating

nanotechnologies 41
2.5.1 NANODIALOGUE project 41
2.5.2 NANOLOGUE project 44
2.5.3 Ancillary projects, web pages, workshops,
products and activities from 2003 to 2008 44
2.6 Assessing the EC-developed

communication on nanotechnology 46
2.6.1 Communication materials and methods 46
2.6.1.1 A three-step method matrix 48
2.6.1.2 Outreach formula 49
2.6.1.3 Coverage 49
2.6.2 Results and discussion 50
2.7 Conclusions: future EC communication

on nanotechnology 54
EC POLICYMAKERS´ FORUM 59
Interviews with Herbert von Bose
and Christos Tokamanis 59
PART III. WHERE DO WE WANT TO BE?

Targeting, structuring and design-
ing the Communication Roadmap 70
3.1 At a glance: The ‘Five Ws’ of nano-communication

(plus three welcome additions) 70
3.2 Getting deeper into the big questions
of nano-communication 71
3.3 A close-up look at the big questions
of nano-communication 76
3.3.1. Step 1: Science communication as part of
the research process (The Goal) 76
13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.3.2. Step 2: In charge of both nano research funding

and communication (The Actor) 76
3.3.3. Step 3: Be ‘SMARTA’ and attitudes will change (The Impact) 77
3.3.3.1 Choosing the method 77
3.3.3.2 Choosing the objectives 77
3.3.3.3 Attitude change 78
3.3.3.3.1 Knowledge and awareness objectives 78
3.3.3.3.2 Confidence and trust: the image objectives 79
3.3.3.4 Behaviour change 80
3.3.3.4.1 The engagement and dialogue objective 80
3.3.3.4.2 The consensus building objective 80
3.3.3.5 Conclusions: Calls to Action 81
3.3.4. Step 4: Getting to know our many publics better (The Audience) 84
3.3.4.1 Identifying audiences 84
3.3.4.2 Basic questions to identify key audiences 85
3.3.4.4 A checklist of questions we should try to get across 86
3.3.4.5 Key audiences for communication and dialogue 87
3.3.4.5.1 Specifying key audiences for communication 87
3.3.4.5.1.1 Young people 88
3.3.4.5.1.1.1 The youngest segment to address: children aged 5 to 13 90
3.3.4.5.1.1.2 The middle segment: teenagers aged 14 to 18 90
3.3.4.5.1.1.3 The upper segment: young people aged 19 to 22 91
3.3.4.5.1.2 Scientists and research communities 91
3.3.4.5.1.3 Media 91
3.3.4.5.1.4 NGOs 92
3.3.4.5.1.5 Business / Industry / Funding Bodies / Insurers 92
3.3.4.5.1.6 Policymakers 93
3.3.4.5.2 Preparing key audiences for dialogue and engagement 93
3.3.5. Step 5: Bring them in: how to prepare for dialogue (The Vehicle) 93
3.3.5.1 Communication and dialogue tool checklist 94
3.3.5.2 Tools for appropriate communication 94
3.3.5.2.1 Call to Action on communication during ‘professional time’ 96
14
3.3.5.2.1.1 Youngsters 96
3.3.5.2.1.1.1 Children aged 5 to13 96
3.3.5.2.1.2 Scientists 97
3.3.5.2.1.3 Media 97
3.3.5.2.1.4 NGOs 98
3.3.5.2.1.5 Business/Industry/Funding bodies/Insurers 98
3.3.5.2.1.6 Policymakers 99
3.3.5.2.2 Call to Action on communication during ‘leisure time’ 100
3.3.5.2.2.1 Games about nanotechnology 101
3.3.5.2.2.2 Virtual Internet environment activities 101
3.3.5.2.2.3 Contemporary art Nano-Festival 102
3.3.5.2.2.4 Travelling event 103
3.3.5.3 Tools for dialogue and engagement 103
3.3.5.3.1 Designing the tools for dialogue and en-
gagement with stakeholders 104
3.3.5.3.2 Call to Action on dialogue and engagement 105
3.3.6. Step 6: Nano revolution coming (The Message) 106
3.3.6.1 Balancing messages out 106
3.3.6.2 Singling out issues for dialogue and engagement 107
3.3.7. Step 7: Sequencing nano-communication (The Schedule) 108
3.3.8. Step 8: Measuring the sea change (The Score) 109
PART IV. HOW DO WE GET THERE?

Implementing the Communication Roadmap 111
4.1 EC ‘Communication and Dialogue

Recipes’ on nanotechnology 112
4.2 EC ‘Communication and Dialogue
Menu’ on nanotechnology 121
4.2.1. EURONANOFORUM 2009 Project 121
4.2.2. Ad hoc Industrial Advisory Group 122
4.2.3. Workshop on public engagement in
nanotechnology (NANO4YOU) 122
15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.2.4. New CORDIS nanotechnology EC web page and leaflet 122

4.2.5. EU Member States High-Level Experts
Group on nanotechnology 123
4.2.6. ECSITE Conference 123
4.2.7. Projects on communication outreach and education 124
4.2.7.1 NANOTV Project 125
4.2.7.2 NANOTOTOUCH Project 127
4.2.7.2.1 Sustainable infrastructures 129
4.2.7.2.1.1 Open Nano Labs 129
4.2.7.2.1.2 ‘Nano researcher Live’ 129
4.2.7.2.2 Events and infrastructures 129
4.2.7.2.2.1 School programmes 130
4.2.7.2.2.2 Open Campus Days, Science Festivals, ‘Meet the Scientist’ 130
4.2.7.3 NANOYOU Project 131
4.2.7.3.1 Activities in schools 132
4.2.7.3.1.1 Information provision 133
4.2.7.3.1.1.1 Virtual tools, online experiments, role-play workshop 134
4.2.7.3.1.1.2 Videos, presentations, virtual exhibition 134
4.2.7.3.1.1.3 Time Machine game 135
4.2.7.3.1.1.4 ‘What is nano’ workshop 135
4.2.7.3.1.2 Promotion of dialogue 135
4.2.7.3.1.2.1 Nano role play, Nano-Hyde Park 135
4.2.7.3.1.2.2 Virtual dialogue facility 136
4.2.7.3.2 Activities in science centres 136
4.2.7.3.2.1 Workshops FUTU and SITU on nano-
technology daily environment 137
4.2.7.3.2.2 Real-sized nanotechnology experiment 137
4.2.7.3.2.3 Nanotechnology users’ conference 137
4.2.7.3.2.4 Teacher training material 138
4.2.7.3.2.5 One-day and modular training 138
4.2.7.3.2.6 Travelling nanotechnology ICT exhibition 139
4.2.7.3.2.7 Communication toolkit 140
4.2.7.4 TIMEFORNANO Project 140
16
4.2.7.4.1 Physical and virtual educational supports 140
4.2.7.4.1.1 Nano-kit 140
4.2.7.4.1.2 NanOlympics EU-wide Web contest 141
4.2.7.4.2 Events 144
4.2.7.4.2.1 Nano-Days 144
4.2.7.4.2.2 European NanOlympics Awards 144
4.2.7.5 Additional projects from social sciences 145
4.2.8 Workshop on collaborations between EC
projects communicating nanotechnology 148
4.2.9 NanoIn Life DVD movie 149
4.2.10 EuroNanoMedicine 150
4.2.11 Annual Meeting of the Controlled Release Society 150
4.2.12 Workshop on converging technologies and impacts on society 150
4.2.13 Second Implementation Report on Nanotechnology 151
4.2.14 Second EC Action Plan on Nanotechnology (2010-2014) 151
4.2.15 EC Communication Roadmap on Nanotechnology (2009-2011) 152
4.2.16 Clustering and Mapping EC projects on Nanotechnology 152
4.2.17 European platform on Nano Outreach and DialoguE - NODE 152
FORUM OF EC COMMUNICATION
PROJECT COODINATORS 154
Interview with Mario Martinoli: 154
Interview with Ulrich Kernbach: 156
Interview with Yoel Rothschild: 158
Interview with Luigi Amodio: 161
PART V. WHERE and WHEN IS IT HAPPENING?

A sound schedule for the Communication Roadmap 164
5.1 Outreach figures: discussion 174

5.2 Conclusions 179
ANNEX 181
Acknowledgements 182
17
18
PART I. WHAT IS
IT FOR?
Framing the Communication Roadmap
We are firstly going to go through a set of documents, sources and original works in
order to identify nanotechnology areas of agreement and disagreement about commu-
nicating nanotechnology. This will bring in new suggestions and open up fresh com-
munication perspectives.
1.1 Nature of the topic

‘Nanotechnology’ is the brand new frontier of technology in Europe and in the world.
It defines the development and application of materials and processes at the nanoscale
– the scale of individual molecules. Nanomaterials are particles, tubes, membranes and
other materials which are measured in nanometres. Nanotechnology encompasses the
scientific principles and properties of nanoscience, that can be understood and mastered
when operating in the nanoscale domain, and applies them at technology level. Some
nanotechnology applications have already emerged and many others are under develop-
ment. Together, they are expected to have a major impact on the life of every citizen,
perhaps as much as other technologies like electricity and electronics had over the whole
of the last century. However, as in any other field, some nanotechnology applications
may be beneficial as well as harmful. Therefore, informing and engaging the public about
nanotechnologies are essential for the responsible development of this new frontier: as
nanotechnology is mainly projected in the future, it is expected to involve selected audi-
ences, so communicating to them is a priority. In fact, this early stage of development,
when just a few applications have reached the market, is a critical moment for com-
munication on nanotechnology, especially as outreach, open dialogue and debate are
declared to be key elements of the European approach to science and technology. Here
in the EU nanotechnology takes a very special place, to the extent that information, com-
munication and fostering societal debate on nanotechnology have already become an
essential part of many European policy initiatives. So it is clear that (i) communication on
nanotechnology is critical for Europe and particularly European institutions; as a conse-
quence (ii) selecting key audiences, how to reach them and defining the priorities for this
communication is essential; finally (iii) setting up appropriate actions to be implemented
for reaching target audiences via the proper vehicles for conveying appropriate messages
is the ultimate step. This overall exercise will allow identifying how nanotechnology can
and should be effectively communicated to selected EU audiences: this is the first thing
this Communication Roadmap is about.
19
1.2 Parameters of the topic

We start with an analysis to explore what has been studied and done to address selected
audiences in order to communicate nanotechnology effectively, with special attention to
young people. To achieve this, we have focused our literature and activity review along
three main lines: (i) where we are now (the analysis); (ii) where we want to be (the target);
(iii) how to get there (the implementation of the Roadmap).
1.3 Analysing, targeting and

implementing the topic
First, the overall framework of the document is presented in Part I. Then, the analysis – the
target and the implementation of the Communication Roadmap – are developed in Parts
II, III, IV respectively. The schedule is developed in Part V.
❍❍ Part I. WHAT IS IT FOR? The STRATEGY
Shaping the framework concept for designing the Communication Roadmap.
❍❍ Part II. WHERE ARE WE NOW? The ANALYSIS
Reviewing the most relevant communication literature and EC activities:
(i) current perception of nanotechnology;

(ii) EC policy documents on communicating nanotechnology;
(iii) theory of communicating science and technology and communication
road-mapping;
(iv) key areas of nanotechnology to be prioritised in communication;
(v) EC-funded projects on communicating nanotechnology;
(vi) EC-developed communication products.
❍❍ Part III. WHERE DO WE WANT TO BE? The TARGET
Targeting, structuring and designing the Communication Roadmap: to whom, how and
what to communicate.
❍❍ Part IV. HOW DO WE GET THERE? The IMPLEMENTATION
Implementing the Communication Roadmap: define principles and guidelines; specify

projects, activities and products.
❍❍ Part V. WHERE and WHEN? The SCHEDULE
Summarise the Communication Roadmap’s time and space coordinates of projects,

activities, products.
20
PART II. WHERE ARE
WE NOW?
Analysing the relevant
literature and EC activities
This section will screen what has been written, done and recently explored on commu-
nicating nanotechnology to selected audiences. Research studies are gathered around
some common denominators, splitting quantitative from qualitative approaches. In this
instance, it is possible to cluster the following sources:
■■ EC policy documents (on principles, strategy and policy actions essentially);
■■ methodological research papers (on communication theory of science and

technology);
■■ on-field applicative research (on key areas of nanotechnology to be communicated);
■■ on-field experiences (projects/activities/exhibitions/products carried out so far).
We have analysed all these documents, sources and works in order to identify areas of
agreement and of potential controversy among authors. This should give us a good indi-
cation of those areas of research and activities that would guide future EC communication
activities. For this purpose, the common definitions, discoveries, approaches, methods,
questions and recommendations are explored and taken into account.
2.1 The current perception

of nanotechnology
Here is a summary of the results coming from various literature and on-field sources, out-
lining what media, lay public and stakeholders say on nanotechnology. It’s quite enough
to give a provisional answer to the following questions.
❍❍ What do the media say?
❍❍ What do people say?
❍❍ What do stakeholders say?
❍❍ What is the general picture?
21
2.1.1 What do the media say?

Media surveys show a positive initial vision on nanotechnology. At the same time, dia-
logue with society comes also clearly across as a crucial priority, which should be aimed
at identifying a legitimate degree of acceptance or rejection of all that it represents. How-
ever, evidence from surveys shows that only a small share of the EU population is aware
of nanotechnology. In this light, it is crucial to raise the question as to what knowledge
and awareness, if any, these audiences would consider as relevant and appropriate to
build a suitable upstream dialogue with the whole of society.
If the printed media seem to be the most upbeat about nano, a broader media analysis
WHERE
shows more subtle results, evolving over time. Several media seem to have switched from
an initial, very optimistic attitude and fascination about nano’s stunning discoveries to a
more realistic interest in specific applications. Another, more sceptical slice of media is
raising troubling questions on the darker side of nanotech, which they fear might see the
rise of fake nano-products or health problems caused by some cleaning products, e.g.
‘Magic-Nano’. Surveys from selected EU media (1) show relatively high optimism with
respect to the chances/risk ratio associated with nanotechnology, where the highest rates
have been attributed to the prospect of a general improvement in the quality of life and
health and the development of new materials. On the other side, the issue of potential
WE NO
for risk across the board is also being raised, from health problems, to a lack of control of
production processes, down to military use. Most media make the case for more research
and dialogue with society, strengthening the importance of ethical issues. The message
coming across loud and clear is that more efforts are needed in the direction of an ap-
propriate approach on nanotechnology communication. More research and dialogue are
indispensable, the media say.
Balance between perceptual opportunities and risks

1
Nanotechnologie im Neutral
Spiegel der Medien Balanced
– Medienanalyse zur
Nanotechnologie.
More risks
Report (http:// Risk
www. risiko-dialog. More opportunities
ch/ Themen/Nano/
nano_publikationen/ Opportunity
Medienanalyse%20
Nanotechnologie%20
final.pdf;
Nanotechnology
and Public Attitudes,
in: http://www.
wilsoncenter.org/index.
cfm?fuseaction=news.
item&news_id=143531).
22
Perceived risk: characterisation and structure
Military
Cancer
Nanobots/Grey goo
Uncontrolled proliferation
Development of
chemical processes
Lung contamination
Cellular penetration
General
E ARE
(source: data reworked (2))
Perceived needs in sampled articles
OW?
20
15
Der Spiegel (2004):

2
Nanotechnologie im
10 Spiegel der Medien
– Medienanalyse zur
Nanotechnologie Report
(http://www.risiko-
dialog.ch/Themen/Nano/
5 nano_publikationen/
Medienanalyse%20
Nanotechnologie%20
final.pdf).
Der Spiegel (2004):
3
0 Nanotechnologie im
n n e Spiegel der Medien
tio tio Bo
th rch rds gu
gula ula ea es n da Dialo – Medienanalyse zur
g
er
e
w
re r er l st
a
fo/
Nanotechnologie Report
ha
nc Ne Mo t hica re in (http://www.risiko-
En E M o dialog.ch/Themen/Nano/
nano_publikationen/
Needs Medienanalyse%20
Nanotechnologie%20
(source: data reworked(3)) final.pdf).
23
2.1.2 What do people say?

Appropriate information is clearly a must. Despite media coverage, public understanding
of nanotechnology is low, as polls in US, Germany and UK show that up to 75% of the
lay public have poor or distorted knowledge about it (4). Additionally, distinct differences
can be drawn between the EU and the US: according to these sources, more than half
of the European population does not know anything about nanotechnology, compared
to one third of sampled Americans. On the other side, only one third of Europeans think
nanotechnology is for the better, as opposed to the response provided by half of the
Americans interviewed. This is mainly due to different factors weighing in: (i) cultural
icons (i.e. nano-robots), (ii) a blurred image favoured by popular media, where nano-
WHERE
technology is not explained as a new phase of tech exploiting the effects of nanoscale,
and (iii) the low efficiency of comparing the nanoworld to two dimensional objects like
human hair. The resulting picture is hazy and incorrect as well as difficult to control,
emphasising fears over high expectations. This seems to point to a particularly volatile
situation where any major negative issue such as accidents could become a catastrophic
backlash for the whole sector.
WE NO

4
BMRB international
(2005): Nanotechnology:
views of the general
public: (http://www.
nanotech.org.uk); Cobb,
M.D.; Macoubrie (2004):
‘Public perceptions
about nanotechnology:
risks, benefits and
trust’.,J, J.Nanoparticle
Res., 2004, 6, 395-
405; Gaskell, G.;
Allum, N.; Stares, S.
(2003): Europeans and
Biotechnology in 2002:
Eurobarometer 58.0;
Methodology Institute,
London School of
Economics, London UK
Bainbridge, W.S., (2002):
‘Public attitudes towards
nanotechnology’
(2002): J.Nanoparticle
Res. 2002, 4, 561-
570; TA-Swiss (2006):
Swiss publifocus on Science fiction loves nano, often putting forward a biased image
nanotechnologies,
(2006), in TA-SWISS, the
Centre for Technology A Eurobarometer analysis gave an interesting at-a-glance picture of optimism and pes-
Assessment. simism about technology in the European Union, putting nano in comparison with other
24
research areas (Figure 1) (5). Even more revealingly, commercial surveys (6) in the US, UK
and Germany (DE) show the awareness gap: people with no knowledge are many more
than people having a degree of knowledge ranging from ‘some’ to ‘much’ (Figure 2).
Figure1. Optimism and pessimism for eight technologies in 2005
Computers and
information technology Don't know
Will deteriorate
Solar energy
No effect
Will improve
E ARE
Wind energy
Mobile phones
Biotechnology /
genetic engineering
Space exploration
Nanotechnology
Nuclear energy
OW?
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage
(source: data reworked ( ))
7
Figure 2. Knowledge of nanotechnology
100 No knowledge
Some to much
80 knowledge
60
40
20 Stares, S. (2003):
5
quoted paper.
BMRB international
6
0 (2005): quoted paper

2002 2004 2005 2004 2004
Stares, S. (2003):
7
US US US UK DE quoted paper.
25
It’s easy to conclude that the public is not well informed about nanotechnology at all.
Also, if the printed media tend to emphasise more benefits than risks, the lay public
perceives more risks than experts do. Clearly, the crucial issue is the risk factor, and
the distinction between perceived and real risks. Generally speaking, it is possible to
evaluate real risks associated to the toxicity of nanotechnology along the life cycle of
manufacturing, use and final disposal of nano-engineered products, especially nano-
particles. Identifying and characterising hazards, exposure and the associated risk are
the main steps of this process: however, assessing risks is expensive, data are insufficient
so far but sufficient to cause concern, which is worsened by the lack of clear regulatory
regimes. In fact, few companies over 1 000 employees do risk assessment due to high
cost, and most start-up companies do not develop any risk assessment at all despite the
fact that a lack of consumer trust could negatively affect the acceptance of their nano-
WHERE
technology products heavily.
Perceived risks seem to relate to a very low awareness of nanotechnology and to the
lack of engagement of consumers on the topic, especially for start-up companies. As a
consequence, an increasing number of studies advocate the inclusion of non-experts in
the process of exploring the mechanisms of social dialogue on acceptance or rejection
of nanotechnology, in order to increase its transparency and effectiveness.
Clearly, many feel more research on toxicology is required, together with a need to join
WE NO
splintered efforts, share data and eliminate ambiguous regulations, hopefully under the
shield of an international authority. But more efforts are also likely to be needed to iden-
tify appropriate mechanisms to promote social awareness on nanotechnology, whose
potentialities, perceived and real risks need to be thoroughly examined.
26
2.1.3 What do stakeholders say?
The main stakeholders’ attitudes on nanotechnology are summarised as follows (Figure 3) (8).
Figure 3. What US and EU stakeholders say and do on nanotechnology
WHAT THEY SAY on nano WHAT THEY DO on nano

8
BMRB international
Industry Risk assessment is adequate Setting guidelines (2005), Cobb, M.D.;
Macoubrie (2004),
Start-ups Assessing risk is expensive Reluctant to raise safety issues Gaskell, G.; Allum,
N.; Stares, S. (2003),
E ARE
NGOs Focus on risk Ask for more testing/regulation Bainbridge, W.S.,
(2002), TA-Swiss (2006):
Regul.bodies Learning curve Enhancing current regulation quoted papers.
Insurers Dialogue on risk Worrying publicly

9
Bonazzi, M. (2009A):
‘Communication
outreach in
Researchers Funding is needed Studying public attitudes
nanotechnology: focus
on young audiences’,
Media Enthusiasm, suspicions, sci-fi Wondrous prospects/Haunting stories EuroNanoForum2009,
proceedings, poster
Consumers Magic, out of control Disorientation n° 169 (http://www.
czech-in.org/euronano/
OW?
(source: data reworked (9))
website/posters.
pdf) and Bonazzi,
These answers have given way to some major considerations about the urgency and M. (2009B): ‘EU
communication outreach
necessity of improving communication outreach on nanotechnology. They should be ex- in nanotechnology:
amined together with the data gathered by a specific survey of communication outreach EC-funded projects’,
presentation and article
products on nanotechnology produced by the EC (10). in session ‘New nano
projects in the ECSITE
network’, ECSITE-Annual
Conference 2009,
Proceedings, 5-6 June
2009, p. 48 (http://
www.ecsite-conference.
net/content/user/
File/2announcement
2009final.pdf). Data
reworked from: BMRB
international (2005),
Cobb, M.D.; Macoubrie
(2004), Gaskell, G.;
Allum, N.; Stares, S.
(2003), Bainbridge,
W.S., (2002), TA-Swiss
(2006) quoted papers.
10
Bonazzi, M.
(2004): Survey on
in nanotechnology
through National
Contact Points,
European Commission,
Biased knowledge on nanotechnology is self-explanatory: display of some anti-nano DG RTD G.4, internal
logos selected by the World Social Forum of Nairobi in 2007 working paper.
27
2.1.4 What is the general picture?

While striving to identify key recommendations to the European Commission for an ef-
fective nanotechnology communication outreach, these are, in brief, the considerations
that should be kept in mind:
■■ about 75% of the EU population has poor knowledge of nanotechnology;
■■ the media show a positive vision, but the lay public perceives more risks than
the experts;
WHERE
■■ theopportunities (mainly on new materials and health) seem to exceed the risks
(homogeneous);
■■ the EC image with respect to nanotechnology is dispersed into different publics;

11
European Commission
(2004): Towards a ■■ mosturgently needed by media, lay public and non-governmental organisations
European Strategy
for Nanotechnology,
(NGOs): (i) more research on real risks, privacy, ethics, decision-making, (ii) more
COM(2004)338; EC, communication, (iii) more societal dialogue and engagement;
WE NO
cordis.europa.eu/
nanotechnology/ ■■ more efforts should be been made towards identifying key audiences and reaching
actionplan.htm). unsure, uninterested, poorly educated youngsters.
12
European Commission
(2004): Towards a
2.2 Key EC policy documents

European Strategy
for Nanotechnology,
COM(2004)338; EC,
cordis.europa.eu/ on communicating
nanotechnology/
actionplan.htm). nanotechnology
13
European Commission
(2008): Commission
Recommendation on In May 2004 the European Commission (EC) adopted the Communication ‘Towards a
a code of conduct for
responsible nanosciences
European Strategy for Nanotechnology’ (11) and in June 2005, the EC published ‘Nanosci-
and nanotechnologies ences and nanotechnologies: An Action Plan for Europe 2005-2009’ (12). More recently in
research, C(2008) 2008, the Commission’s Recommendation on a code of conduct for responsible nanosci-
424 final, Brussels,
07/02/2008 (http:// ences and nanotechnologies research (13) was published stating that ‘good governance of
ec.europa.eu/ nanotechnology and nanoscience (i.e. N&N) research should take into account the need
nanotechnology/
pdf/nanocode- and desire of all stakeholders to be aware of the specific challenges and opportunities
rec_pe0894c_en.pdf). raised by N&N. A general culture of responsibility should be created …’
28
This Code of Conduct is based on a set of general principles whose calls to action aimed
at guaranteeing their respect by all stakeholders.
■■ Meaning: N&N research should be comprehensible to the public, respecting funda-

mental rights and be conducted in the interest of the well-being of individuals and
society in their design, implementation, dissemination and use.
■■ Sustainability: N&N research activities should be safe, ethical and contribute to

sustainable development serving the sustainability objectives of the Community as
well as contributing to the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (14). They
should not harm or create a biological, physical or moral threat to people, animals,
plants or the environment, at present or in the future.
E ARE
■■ Precaution: N&N research activities should be conducted in accordance with the pre-
cautionary principle, anticipating potential environmental, health and safety impacts
of N&N outcomes and taking due precautions, proportional to the level of protection,
while encouraging progress for the benefit of society and the environment.
■■ Inclusiveness: governance of N&N research activities should be guided by the prin-

ciples of openness to all stakeholders, transparency and respect for the legitimate
right of access to information. It should allow the participation in decision-making
OW?
processes of all stakeholders involved in or concerned by N&N research activities.
■■ Excellence: N&N research activities should meet the best scientific standards, includ-
ing standards underpinning the integrity of research and standards relating to Good
Laboratory Practices (14).
■■ Innovation: governance of N&N research activities should encourage maximum cre-

ativity, flexibility and planning ability for innovation and growth.
14
The United Nations
■■ Accountability: researchers and research organisations should remain accountable Millennium
Declaration, General
for the social, environmental and human health impacts that their N&N research may Assembly resolution
impose on present and future generations. 55/2, 8/9/2000.
29
WHERE
15
European Commission
(2005): Nanosciences
and nanotechnologies:
An action plan for
Europe 2005-2009,
COM(2005)243,

Preparing for appropriate communication and dialogue on nanotechnology impel the
WE NO
Brussels, 2005.
16
European Commission
EC to develop foresight-thinking, strategies and policies
(2001): ‘Europeans,
Science and Technology’ These policy papers define a series of actions for the immediate implementation of a
in Eurobarometer
55.2, Brussels, safe, integrated and responsible strategy for nanosciences and nanotechnologies. These
December 2001; documents have declared that a responsible approach on nanotechnology must address

17
European Commission citizens’ expectations and concerns and have asked the EU Member States to create the
(2006): ‘Europeans and
Biotechnology in 2005: conditions for an effective two-way dialogue with the public, making a specific focus on
Patterns and Trends’, selected audiences.
in Eurobarometer,
Brussels, July 2006.
These EC policy documents describe the reasons underlying the current situation
18
European Commission
(2004): Nanotechnology: clearly. Most schools’ curricula, of course, do not cover this subject well yet, which
views of the general may partly account for current surveys (15) showing that a large majority of Europeans
public (2004),
EC, Brussels. is not informed or engaged on nanotechnology. Although ‘nano’ words appear fre-
19
Bonazzi, M.(ed.), quently in the media, nanotechnology is poorly understood; some think of nano as a
(2007A): Working form of ‘magic’ (16), others fear mainly the risks. Unfortunately, these misunderstand-
paper resulting
from the workshop
ings and misperceptions about science are not isolated phenomena (17). Although
on: Strategy for some of the problems of communicating nanotechnology depend on its special char-
communication outreach acteristics – for example, the invisible nature of nanotechnology and its novelty and
in nanotechnology,
EC, Brussels, 6th revolutionary approach – the experience of communicating other new technologies
February 2007 (http:// shows that the public needs to be introduced to them in a clear and simple way, tak-
cordis.europa.eu/
nanotechnology/src/ ing into account public needs and interests, preferably from the very beginning of this
publication_events.htm). technology’s development.
30
The EC has already looked further into changing a traditional science and technology 20
Bonazzi, M. and
communication approach called the ‘deficit model’, according to which the public must Palumbo, J. (eds.),
(2007): Report
understand science in order to accept it. This model is no longer working well (18), and from the workshop
seems completely obsolete (19): this change can be summed up by saying that for com- - Communication
Outreach in
municating science and technology the ‘scientific understanding of public’ has now Nanotechnology: from
become more important than the ‘public understanding of science’ (20). Consequently, recommendation to
it is possible to see how European institutions such as the European Commission have action, EC, Brussels,
24-25 October 2007
moved from a top-down to a bottom-up communication approach on nanotechnol- (http://cordis.europa.
ogy, promoting a ‘dialogue’ model (21) based on science communication as a multi-way eu/nanotechnology/src/
publication_events.htm).
exchange of information between specialists and non-specialists (22), rather than a one-
21
Bonazzi, M.(ed.),
way communication (23). It describes a process that enables each party to share, listen (2007B): Working Paper
and be listened to in full respect of the other’s points of view. This dialogue model
E ARE
resulting from: Open
of communicating nanotechnology is founded on an interactive approach seeking to Web consultation
on a Strategy for
involve many audiences in the discussion and to provide the most complete range communication outreach
of viewpoints and perspectives (24). Additionally, a clear message has been sent to in nanotechnology,
EC, Brussels, March-
communicate and dialogue with selected audiences about nanotechnology. Among October 2007 (http://
these, a very important segment consists of youngsters, pre-adolescents, adolescents cordis.europa.eu/
nanotechnology/src/
(or ‘teens’) and young adults. If they can be informed about nanotechnology in a bal- publication_events.htm).
anced way, both on its exciting prospects and potential risks, these selected audiences 22
Cobb, M.D. Macoubrie,
may become well informed and engaged on this subject and contribute to the public J,(2004): J.Nanoparticle
debate and decision-making on nanotechnology (25) in the future. Res., 2004, 6, 395-405.
OW?
23
Cobb, M.D. (2002):
J. Nanoparticle Res.
On the institution side, clear actions and indications are coming from recent initiatives 2002, 4, 561-570.
by the European Commission. The EC launched a three-year long process including 24
BMRB international
two separate workshops, with an open Web-based consultation on nanotechnology (2007), Public
perceptions about
communication outreach: (i) the first workshop (organised on 6 February 2007) fo- nanotechnology: risks,
cused on the main issues to frame a strategy (26); (ii) the open Web consultation (from benefits and trust,
May to October 2007) (27) provided a fundamental input of comments and questions London (http://www.
nanotech.org.uk).
to be addressed in the (iii) second workshop (organised on 25 and 26 October 2007), 25
Bonazzi, M. and
identifying a set of potential actions to be developed by the EC (28). These initiatives in- Palumbo, J. (eds.),
volved the participation of 48 international experts from the fields of opinion-making, (2007): quoted paper.
science communication outreach, social engagement, design, arts and nanotechnol-
26
Bonazzi, M. (ed.),
(2007A), quoted paper.
ogy. (29) A crucial input on these issues was provided by the Web consultation, that 27
Bonazzi, M. (ed.),
asked important questions emerging from the first workshop and remained online for (2007B), quoted paper.
over six months on the nanotechnology website of the European Commission. The 28
Bonazzi, M. and
result was very fruitful, in that hundreds of comments from the lay public, especially Palumbo, J. (eds.),
(2007), quoted paper.
young people, were collected. That wide variety of views, opinions, expectations and
29
Bonazzi, M. (2008):
concerns went on to be integrated into the second workshop. ‘Communicating
nanotechnology through
art’, in Art and Science
- creative fusion, EC,
Brussels, December
2008, ISBN 978-92-
79-10879-2, pages
13-14, EC, DG RTD,
reprinted in 2009.
31
WHERE
Developing initiatives for communication and dialogue on nanotechnology requires
innovative approaches
This exercise has pinpointed several recommendations for shaping future communication
activities, in order to identify: (i) which audiences are crucial, (ii) which messages are
appropriate, and (iii) which vehicles, techniques and outcomes are appropriate to attain
WE NO
target audiences, especially young people. An assessment of current communication and
insights of desirable outcomes is following suit. This is now openly aiming to investigate
how a much broader dialogue with the whole of society can work best. It is looking at
what makes people tick when asked to react over specific nanotechnology issues.
With a more technical expression, it could be said this process wants to identify key audi-
ences, key messages and communication multipliers. For instance, science centres and
school teachers are identified as main recommended targets for future communication on
nanotechnology addressing younger audiences. Additionally, expressive languages and
art should be priority channels to reach selected audiences, as they stimulate people’s cu-
riosity and participation by way of visual expression, games, contests or competitions (30).
2.3 Theory of communicating

science and technology
It now seems that the deficit model is suffering from a fundamental deficit itself. This con-
ventional approach in communicating science and technology, developed in the 1980s,
was based on the premise that negative public attitudes towards modern science and
technology are caused mainly by a lack of adequate knowledge. Therefore, by provid-
ing the public with sufficient scientific information it might be possible to manage this

30
Bonazzi, M. (2009A), ‘knowledge deficit’ (hence the name of the model) and obtain greater public support for
quoted paper. science and technology. Although ‘knowledge gap’ filling is still a significant element of
32
any present day communication, it nevertheless requires packaging and delivery means
that respond to real rather than perceived public information needs.
2.3.1 From public understanding

of science to scientific
understanding of the public
It’s a fact: over the past few decades, scientific, financial or industrial actors have been
making all the choices over the way scientific research and technological development
E ARE
(i.e. RTD) should be communicated to society. This standard pattern has recently been
criticised for being too unidirectional and essentially deaf to society’s willingness to get
ever more involved into issues carrying a major potential impact.
It’s a failing assumption that RTD systems on their own can make science and technol-
ogy more accessible, friendly and close to the public. In fact, they have not been shown
to produce social acceptance and a fruitful debate automatically, due to the enormous
amount of information required by the public, its fragmentation and the intrinsic difficulty
in motivating people to devote more of their time and skills to RTD learning. This is espe-
OW?
cially true for nanotechnology.
Overall, it seems fair to say that any communication of science, research and technology
should face the fact that the actors have swapped places. Indeed, society as a whole is
increasingly becoming the focal actor of communication, and the concept of public un-
derstanding of science has been turned around into that of scientific understanding of
the public. The citizen (as moral and legal entity as well as consumer of S&T outcomes)
has clearly become the central point of the whole communication exercise.
The responsibilities conventionally entrusted to science are currently being re-examined,

despite science’s efforts to enhance the public’s knowledge so far. The difficulty of com-
municating especially sensitive technologies, such as GMOs, human genetics and nano-
technology itself, has magnified society’s perception of their associated risk, which has
been seen as a major uncertainty. This perception has been shown to be mainly due to
a feeling of seclusion from both information- and decision-making. Sadly, RTD systems
seem to have progressively lost a significant share of society’s trust and their communica-
tion with society has plunged into a crisis. This can ultimately end up causing a gover-
nance problem.
The main point is, society is increasingly calling for RTD systems to be more accountable,
since the relating governance issue lies in society’s perception of the risks associated
with RTD achievements. As a consequence, society is showing a growing willingness to
become more active in the dialogue with RTD systems. Obviously, this accountability
should extend to all ethical and cultural implications of RTD achievements.
33
Indeed, ‘EC policymakers working on RTD systems have the moral duty to inform so-
ciety appropriately about risks, uncertainties and opportunities relating to their work.
They openly acknowledge that society has the right to be appropriately informed about
all these aspects, in order to provide feedback and dialogue and contribute to the deci-
sion-making process’ (31).
The question now is, how can this principle be applied to nanotechnology, and what is
the role of EU institutions, particularly the EC and its RTD services. Setting up the strategic
planning framework of an EC Communication Roadmap for nanotechnology should be
the first appropriate answer.
WHERE
2.3.2 From strategic planning to
Communication Roadmap
Strategic planning of any product development or business endeavour cannot do without
communication any longer. In these times of economic, social and market uncertainties,
any progress towards the established targets needs to be properly communicated, if such
endeavours are to survive and grow.
WE NO
As a method tool, an external communications strategy can be used for an information
campaign, a Public Relations operation or image positioning. In modern times, the first
patterns and models are found among those who held a mechanical approach of com-
munication: Sender A > Information conveyed > receiver B. Post world war (WWII) cy-
bernetic scientists started to improve this model by stressing the exchange of information
between senders and receivers.
This led to the feedback theory, according to which B reacts to information sent by A,
with A having to adjust its original content to B’s need. At about the same time, Harold
Lasswell described the communication spectrum with the ‘5 Ws’ formula: ‘Who says
What to Whom through What channel with What effect’. This multiple formula was
originally applied to analyse American polling or election days. Today, it is still taught in
journalism schools: it is applied to news releases, whose first paragraph is supposed to
answer all five questions.
It’s worth noticing that the formula is incomplete since it leaves out at least three ques-

31
Tomellini, R. (2009), tions: ‘where’, ‘when’ and especially ‘why’, the most crucial question to all strategies.
speech at Research
Marketing Workshop, Indeed, any content and media selection should be subordinate to the ‘because’ answer,
DG Research, European and the efficiency of any communication campaign can only be measured by its key
Commission, January
2009 and Bonazzi, M. objective. At European Commission level, six relevant features have been singled out to
(2009A), quoted paper. be encouraged:
34
1. a more sober communication style;
2. a more rigorous budget monitoring;
3. a communication management refocusing on more strategic domains, such as lobby-

ing and appropriate media relationships;
4. more assessment-minded practitioners;
5. more new technology-driven practitioners;
6. the use of social networks and Web community communication.
E ARE
2.4 Key nanotechnologies to
prioritise in communication
According to key policy documents mentioned in Section 2.1, it can be safely said that
nanotechnology is a broad field with many potential application areas, coupled with great
potential benefits and risks for society. The most influential scientific literature on nano-
OW?
technology communication has recently identified three main areas for urgent communi- 32
Capurro, R., (2004):
cation to selected audiences: nanomedicine (32), nano-energy and nano-environment (33), ‘EGE Opinion No.
21: Ethical Aspects
nano- and information and communication technology (ICT) (34). of Nanomedicine’, in
EURONANOFORUM
The nano-medical area is one that all individuals can personally relate to, and this guaran- 2007, March 2007;
EC, Brussels.
tees high public interest; the nano-energy/environment area clearly touches sustainability, 33
The Royal Society,
one of the issues of major public and policy concern. Finally, nano- and ICT show a vast (2004): ‘Effects of
possibility of gadgets and entertainment to make everyone’s life better, easier and fun, nanotechnology on
the environment’,
which should be of particular interest to all young people. All three areas involve benefits Nanotechnology
and risks and are expected to generate lively debate and discussion. Applications
(http://www.
understandingnano.com/
nanotech-applications.
2.4.1 Nanomedicine html), London, 2004.
34
NANODIALOGUE
(2007): ‘Nano-
This area has the potential to realise significant innovation in the diagnosis and treatment technologies and
of diseases and other health-related problems. Nanomedicine is defined by the European Nanosciences: A
discussion of ethical,
Science Foundation as ‘the science and technology of diagnosing, treating and preventing legal and social
disease and traumatic injury, or relieving pain, and of preserving and improving human aspects’, Nanodialogue
health using molecular tools and molecular knowledge of the human body’ (35). final Conference,
5th February 2007,
Brussels, 2007.
It includes five principal sub-disciplines: (i) analytic tools, (ii) nanoimaging, (iii) nanomate- 35
EURONANOFORUM
rials and nanodevices, (iv) novel therapeutics, (v) theranostics, (vi) drug delivery systems, (2004): Ethical Aspects
of Nanomedicine
(vii) regenerative medicine, (viii) neuroprosthetics, and (ix) clinical, regulatory and toxico- (http://www.capurro.
logical issues. For example, nanotecnology could be used to produce small, inexpensive, de/nanoethics.html).
35
portable diagnostic devices that are less intrusive for patients and perform the diagnosis of
a suspected disease in a very short time, with the guarantee of high accuracy. Nanomate-
rials will lead to extremely sensitive devices that can detect, for example, pathogen agents
in very small quantities, leading quickly to early diagnosis and consequently to more
effective treatments. Finally, these developments can broaden the area of point-of-care
diagnostics. Important advancements in the field of in vivo imaging are also expected (e.g.
targeted imaging), which will also be another crucial tool for early detection of diseases.
Nanotechnology also enables the development of novel imaging instrumentation to im-
prove imaging sensitivity and accuracy.
2.4.2 Nanotechnology in tools, devices,
WHERE
materials, processes for sustainability
Nanotechnology can be used to enhance a wide range of energy technologies including
solar technologies, hydrogen production, hydrogen storage and fuel cells. Novel batteries
and super-capacitors with improved power, battery lifetime and safety properties are un-
der study. Another area of interest is catalysis, which could allow for abundant and cheap
chemical products by improving industrial catalytic processes. Catalysis is also important
for the production of pharmaceuticals, for improving environmental protection, for mak-
WE NO
ing both production and distribution of energy more sustainable. Energy-saving is another
important area, where nanotechnology could develop lightweight materials with more ef-
ficient properties for reducing energy consumption during the mechanical operation of a
wide range of devices, like nanostructured insulators or coatings for windows that reduce
heat in summer and limit the needs for air-conditioning.
The application of nanotechnology to the environment may also produce significant ad-
vancements, as explained below.
■■ Superior water and air quality: filters incorporating nanoparticles can selectively
block toxic contaminants; magnetised nanoparticles of rust can be used to remove
toxic arsenic from water; similarly, nanoparticles activated by light may be used to re-
move other contaminants from water. Filters and membranes for the decontamination
of air and water can also be engineered using nanotechnology to react chemically
with contaminants and convert them into non-toxic products.
■■ Remote environmental detection: miniature sensors developed by using nanotechnol-

ogy could be utilised to detect specific pollutants into the environment.
■■ More environment-friendly materials: nanotechnology can be used to produce biodegrad-

able plastics and reduce the toxicity of rechargeable batteries; especially, nano-coated
glass could display self-cleaning properties by using only sunlight and water.
36
■■ ‘Green manufacturing’: nanotechnology has the potential of making some industrial
processes more efficient in terms of energy use and material consumption, by mini-
mising the generation of toxic pollutants and waste simultaneously.
2.4.3 Nanotechnology and Information

& Communication Technologies
In the field of ICT nanotechnology is expected to improve information processing systems
constantly, which will result in increasingly powerful hardware. New nanotechnology
recording concepts will combine various advantages: large memory-storage capability,
E ARE
very fast access and conservation of data without constant power supply. These concepts
are based on new technologies such as transistors based on one single electron, memory-
storage in nanocrystals, and spintronics. Thanks to nanoelectronics, a single device of the
size of a credit card could be used as a tape recorder, camera, video player, television,
mobile telephone, GPS, translator, and, of course, as a credit card.
A second ICT area where nanotechnology could play an important role is the interface
between computers and the physical world. Computer display technologies, such as
screens and interfaces with humans, as well as detection devices to monitor the environ-
OW?
ment, will make widespread use of nanomaterials to improve performance. Scientists and
researchers are working on the creation of ‘smart’ environments in which objects of daily
use are permanently interconnected, which would place us amidst a so-called ‘Internet
of things’. In this area, Radio Frequency Identification tags (RFID) are expected to play a
crucial role. Made by an antenna and an electronic chip, these devices allow for the stor-
age and remote retrieval of data. RFID tags can be collated or incorporated in products.
More advanced than the bar code, these complex chips react to radio waves and transmit
their information without contact. The main uses of those sensor networks are quality
control during production, consumer information and protection of perishable products
and management of infrastructures such as the leakage of water distribution systems. The
nanometric generation of RFID chips is developing rapidly and could reduce their dimen-
sion to the size of ‘smart dust’.
2.4.4 Uncertainties, hazards, risks

and associated ethical, legal
and societal aspects
For all nanotechnology applications, the key concerns are focused around the potential
health and environmental hazards of nanoparticles and the associated ethical, legal and
social issues (ELSA). Because of the very novelty of nanotechnology, there may be real
37
difficulties to identify, estimate and manage the risks that may be involved, especially the
long term risks which may be different from short term ones (36).
For example, it is possible to identify short term, medium term and long term (5, 10, and
20 years) ethical issues associated with nanomedicine.
36
The European Group In the short term, the ethical questions arise mainly from the lack of knowledge about the
on Ethics in Science
and New Technologies risks of interventions using nano-based products and tests(37).
(EGE) advisory of the
EC President, (2007):
■■ In the medium term, nanodevices and nanomedical products are expected to be used
Opinion on Nanomedi-
cine (http://ec.europa.eu/ in all medical fields. This raises the ethical questions of responsibility at a local and
european_group_ethics/ global level: sensitive issues like data protection and privacy are expected to arise, as
WHERE
avis/index_en.htm).
with genetic testing.
37
Capurro, R. (2004):
‘Reflections on Benefits,
Risks, Ethical, Legal ■■ In the long term, nanotechnology might make the enhancement and even the transfor-
and Social Aspects of
Nanotechnology’, mation of the human body and human nature and identity possible (38). The European
Nanoforum (2004). Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), an advisory body to the EC
38
EURONANOFORUM President, published an opinion document on nanomedicine in January 2007 (39). It
(2004) Ethical Aspects recognises the ‘potential of nanomedicine in developing new diagnostic, treatment
of Nanomedicine
(http://www.capurro. and preventive methods and places emphasis on conducting research both into its
de/nanoethics.html). safety and its ethical, legal and societal aspects’. It proposes to set up a European
WE NO
39
(La) Commission Na- network on the ethics of nanomedicine and suggests that further monitoring of the
tionale de l’Informatique
et des Libertés (CNIL) current legal situation should be carried out, although it does not call for a specific
has named its 2006 an- legislation at this stage.
nual report: ‘Alerte à la
société de surveillance’
(Alert to the Surveil- Regarding the long term, environmental impacts in terms of nanomaterials, many authors
lance Society) (http:// assume, whether correctly or not, that nanoparticles will definitely pose a risk for the
www.cnil.fr/fileadmin/
documents/La_CNIL/ environment, especially during the processing phase, although there is no fully clear sci-
publications/CNIL- entific evidence of this until now. They claim nanoparticles could accidentally enter into
27erapport-2006.pdf).
the food chain, initially causing damage to plants and animals and eventually becoming
40
Lemoine, P. (2006),
Nanotechnologie, a hazard to humans. A second risk related to nanoparticles is their possible reaction with
Informatique et Libertés, other elements producing new harmful substances in the environment.
Communication du 12
janvier 2006 - special
report on Nanotechnol- In the area of information and communication technologies, the main issues are related
ogy, privacy and data to privacy, data protection, governance and regulation. In this light, the EC has initiated
protection, CNIL, Paris,
2006. See the Internet public consultation about a range of draft recommendations for implementing principles
(http://www.cnil.fr/ for privacy, data protection and information security in nanotechnology applications
fileadmin/documents/
approfondir/dossier/
based on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) (40). In addition, some national organisa-
technologies/Com-phl- tions such as the CNIL in France are warning stakeholders and the public at large about
Nanotechnologies.pdf). the potential negative consequences on privacy and personal freedom of the application
41
The Royal Society of nanotechnology in information and communication technologies (41).
(2007): Towards an
RFID policy for Europe,
London, 2007 (http:// A number of other ethical, legal and societal issues are often raised with regard to
ec.europa.eu/informa-
tion_society/policy/ nanotechnologies. These include: (i) how to balance potential benefits versus potential
rfid/index_en.htm). costs, (ii) distribution of benefits and costs among the population, (iii) concerns about
38
personal freedom, control of the development of nanotechnologies, and ethics of 42
Van Est et al., (2004): Om
human enhancement. het Kleine te Waarderen,
The Hague, Rathenau
Institute, The Netherlands;
Obviously, communication projects can do a great deal of good here. Stimulating the Van Est, R. and Wahlout,
interest of selected audiences in dialoguing on all these issues means raising their aware- B., 2007, NGO and engag-
ing naotechnology, The
ness of this whole complexity of ethical, legal and societal issues which is bound to be Hague, Rathenau Institute.
tied to policy choices. Since there are clear indications that the level of challenge needs 43
Rathenau Institute
to be age-sensitive, young people need to be addressed with their own specific commu- (2008): Ten lessons for
a nanodialogue, Delft,
nication programmes. The Netherlands.
44
Malsch, I. (2006):
A sum-up of the hottest societal issues follows (42). Report on expert
meetings: milieu –en
E ARE
gezondheidrisico’s van
i) Safety nanodeeltjes-naar een
Risks, especially associated with nanoparticles: overall, they can be assessed once both prudent beleid, The
Hague, Rathenau insti-
the associated hazard and the related exposure are identified; dealing with uncertainty tute; REACH framework
is more difficult, as more research is clearly needed to identify the associated hazards. EC 2006/1907 (http://
Uncertainty still surrounds aerosol nanoparticles, although researchers are defining www.REACH.org).
the associated hazards better and better: these are related mainly to processing phases,
45
Renn, O. (2005):
White Paper on Risk
although exposure effects are still not fully known nor understood (43). Hazards linked Governance, The Hague,
to nanoparticles under other forms are being studied, and some of these have already Rathenau Institute;
Renn, O. and Roco,
been defined. Consequently, a more advanced version of the various risk assessment
OW?
M. 2006, ‘Nanotech-
methodologies is going to be adopted. nology and the need
for risk governance’,
Journal of Nanopar-
■■ There is definitely an urgency to minimise risk at manufacturer level, where employ- ticle Research, 8 (2).
ees are most exposed to nanoparticles (44). 46
FoE, 2008, Out of the
laboratory and to our
plates. Nanotechnology
■■ All this is connected to risk governance, which is the process of debating and defining in food and agriculture,
risk acceptability according to a recently developed model (45). Friends of the Earth,
Australia, United States,
Germany. Renton, A.
■■ Concerns for food safety are on the increase. These have been expressed by dif- 2006, ‘Welcome to the
ferent sides. The case for a moratorium on nano in food has been made by various World of the nano-
food’, The Observer,
NGOs, e.g. Friends of the Earth (46), and particular prudence has been also suggested Guardian Unlimited,
by an EC project (47). 16 December; Rey,
L. (2006): Nanotech-
nologien in der Schweiz:
ii) Self-reproduction Herausforderungen
erkannt, TA Swiss.
The scary science fiction ‘grey goo’ scenario is losing importance and influential re-
47
NANOBIORAISE project
ports are distancing themselves from its sensationalist aspects (48), though artificial (2008):, Nanotechnology
creation of viruses deserve more attentive consideration (49). and Food 2008 (http://
www.nanobioraise.org).
iii) Privacy
48
Van Ameron (2006):
Image dynamics in
Multiple applications on everyday life could raise concerns on the restrictions to indi- nanotechnology debate,
vidual rights that smart environments can bring: EASTT Conference,
Lausanne, 23-26 August.
49
KNAW (2004): Hoe
■■ Radio Frequency Identification, smart system storing and pro- Groot kan Klein zijn?,
cessing information that can be read at some distance and can KNAW, Amsterdam.
39
easily involve erosion of privacy (50), similar to those few supermar-

ket loyalty cards that can store patterns of consumer habits;
50
Van den Heu-
vel et al., (2007): RFID
■■ ambient intelligence, systems to telemonitor medical applica-
bewustzijn van Con-
sumenten, The Hague, tions and data that could potentially be used by insurers (51);
Rathenau Institute.
51
Schuurmans et al., iv) Human enhancement
(2007): Ambient
Intelligence, The Hague, Converging technologies integrating nanotechnology with bio- info- and cognitive
Rathenau Institute. sciences can pave the way to improved human performances and raise legitimate
52
Roco, M. and Bain- ethical questions on the limits of human nature (52).
bridge, S. (Eds.), (2002):
Converging Tehnologies
v) Synthetic biology and artificial life
WHERE
for Improving Human
Performance Nanotech- Several doubts have already been expressed about the ethical legitimacy regarding
nology, Biotechnology,
information technology the cell as a mere collection of nanomachines which can be copied, redesigned,
and cognitive science, manipulated and improved (53).
Arlington, National Sci-
ence Foundation; Miller
and Wilsdon, 2006. vi) Predictive medicine
53
Van Est et al. (2007): Both privacy aspects and the doctor-patient relationship, plus the widening gap be-
Synthetische Biologie:
nieuw leven in het
tween diagnostics possibilities and possible realistic treatment are the main issues
biodebat, Rathenau associated with the possible applications (54).
Institute, The Hague,
WE NO
The Netherlands.
vii) Arms and ethics of war
54
Gezondheidsraad
(2006): Betekenis van Around the world, significant applications in the military field raise relevant issues (55);
Nanotechnologies voor however, the EC’s framework programme for research is given no remit to carry out
de Gezondheid, No
2006/06, Rathenau any research for military applications. This extends to any potential dual civil and mili-
Institute, The Hague, tary use.
The Netherlands.
55
Van Est et al. (2004): Om viii) Intellectual property rights and nanodivide
het Kleine te Waarderen,
The Hague, Rathenau In- IPRs are expected to fall under increasing pressure, and poor countries may be
stitute, The Netherlands. negatively affected by the increasing gap in access to nanotechnologies on both man-
56
Meridian Institute ufacturer and consumer sides (56).
(2008): programme
Nanotechnology
and the Poor. ix) Governance and dialogue
57
Nanodialogue, Upstream engagement promoted by various organisations e.g. Demos and EC proj-
(2007) (http://www.
ecsite-conference.net/
ects, (57) discuss the role of science in public debates, although it was noticed that a
content/user/File/gug- few policymakers still seem to regard this more as a threat than an opportunity (58).
lielmo%20maglio%20 With the very purpose of encouraging public debate, EC projects have identified
nanodialogue.pps).
useful tools to clarify societal assessment of a nanoproduct or application prior to its
58
Stilgoe, (2007): Nanodia-
logues. Experiments in market introduction, i.e. Nanometer Web-based tool (59).
public engagement with
science, London, Demos.
Given the necessity of this dialogue, appropriate communication should establish
59
Nanologue (2007):
see the Internet (http:// what is relevant and appropriate to say to target audiences, who should do that,
www.nanologue.net/). when and how.
40
In conclusion, it is possible to predict that several issues will become part and parcel of
the future policy agenda:
■■ SAFETY, mainly in terms of real and perceived risk for health, environment and
governance;
■■ PRIVACY, addressing ambient intelligence, predictive medicine and Radio Frequency

Identification;
■■ ETHICS, regarding mainly the possible applications linked to human enhancement,

synthetic biology, artificial life and nano-divide, which are especially coming from the
interactions between converging areas of nano-bio-info-cognitive disciplines.
E ARE
Other questions such as the arms race, the ethics of war and self-replicating organisms
might yet turn out to deserve more attention now (60).
2.5 EC-funded projects

on communicating
nanotechnologies
OW?
The first projects funded by the EC, which are described in this chapter, were called NAN-
ODIALOGUE and NANOLOGUE. They paved the way to an exciting, current second
wave of projects, which were negotiated and funded in early 2009. They are called NAN-
60
As reworked by the
OTV, NANOYOU, NANOTOTOUCH, TIMEFORNANO and EURONANOFORUM2009, Author from the inter-
which will be described in Section III. view to Noel Sharkey,
Professor of Artificial
Intelligence and Robot-
ics at the University
2.5.1 NANODIALOGUE project of Sheffield, ‘Military
killer robots could
endanger civilians’, The
The Nanodialogue (61) project was all about raising curiosity and stimulating the debate on Daily Telegraph, 3 Au-
nanotechnologies and nanosciences. The main target groups were gathered in three clus- gust 2009 (http://www.
telegraph.co.uk/news/
ters: schools, families/general public and young people related to industry/university. The newstopics/politics/
project centred on an interactive exhibition module, which was displayed in eight coun- defence/5966243/Mili-
tary-killer-robots-could-
tries. It included a programme of events and participatory activities in each location, as endanger-civilians.html).
well as a survey of public perceptions and expectations, which developed 800 question- NANODIALOGUE
61
naires and set up multimedia polling station on each location. The work to be developed (2007) ‘Nano-
technologies and
in the following projects can certainly use the results of these surveys as a starting point Nanosciences’,
for its own surveys on young people’s expectations, preferences and attitudes. However, Nanodialogue final
Nanodialogue was not fully focused on children and young people, but rather on a much Conference, 5th
February 2007, Brussels,
wider audience. The Nanodialogue project organised exhibitions on nanotechnology in 2007 (http://www.ecsite-
eight countries and chose to promote social information and dialogue in the form of focus conference.net/content/
user/File/guglielmo%20
groups and public debates. Results and recommendations were presented at a final open maglio%20
conference, which was held in the European Parliament in February 2007. nanodialogue.pps).
41
WHERE Modular panels enable NANODIALOGUE to become a travelling event, easily

transported, assembled and displayed in various Member States (courtesy of
NANODIALOGUE project)
WE NO
Hands-on and minds-on experiences capture attention and challenge curiosity (cour-
tesy of NANODIALOGUE project)
42
E ARE
Playing with the future: nano-scenarios are sketched, stimulating imagination (courtesy
of NANODIALOGUE project)
OW?
Coaching policymakers: a final NANODIALOGUE event illustrates to a high-level
forum strategic recommendations on communicating nanotechnology (courtesy of
43
2.5.2 NANOLOGUE project

Nanologue’s objective (62) was meant to be complementary, and in fact it brought together
current leading research on the social, ethical and legal implications of nanotechnology.
The project provided a common ground for public discussion on the potential benefits
and risks by assessing the ethical, legal and social aspects of nanotechnology with the
help of studies, stakeholder interviews and workshops. The result provided guidance on
how to address the issues for the greater benefit of both society and the economy. The
outcomes of the project were: (i) a background paper on the ethical, legal and social as-
pects (ELSA) of several nanotechnology application areas (energy conversion and storage,
food packaging and medical diagnosis), (ii) a study on opinions on the ethical, legal and
WHERE
social aspects of nanotechnologies, and (iii) the development of three detailed scenarios
on the future of nanotechnology and its applications. Future projects should take into
account the Nanologue Background Paper on nanotechnology ELSA in the design of
their communication and outreach programme. The Nanologue project also produced
a booklet sketching out three possible scenarios of nanotechnology future development,
called ‘The future of nanotechnology: We need to talk’ and developed a ‘NanoMeter’
giving guidance to research project coordinators on potential impacts of their research on
ethical and social issues.
WE NO Key questions are of essence in communicating nanotechnology:

NANOLOGUE addresses some of them to outline very different scenarios (by courtesy
of NANOLOGUE project)
2.5.3 Ancillary projects, web pages,

workshops, products and

62
NANOLOGUE (2006):
Europe-wide dialogue
on benefits, risks and
activities from 2003 to 2008
social, ethical and
legal implications of Other projects such as NANOBIORAISE (63) developed a public dialogue on a set of
nanotechnology (http://
www.nanologue.net/). nanotechnology applications and took care to pinpoint those areas where dialogue is
63
See the Internet (http:// expected to play a very different role in social acceptance or rejection (e.g. nanomedi-
nanobio-raise.org/). cine versus nano-food applications). Support for further actions in this field is expected
44
in FP7. NanoBio-RAISE combined ethics research in nanobiotechnology with science
communication. This interdisciplinary project brought together nanobiotechnologists,
ethics and communication specialists. The aim was to anticipate the societal and ethical
issues which are likely to arise as nanobiotechnologies develop and use the lessons drawn
from the GMO debate to plan the response to some probable public concerns. This was
a Sixth Framework Programme Science & Society Co-ordination Action, whose output
were mainly groups on human enhancement, events, seminars, workshops, games, brief-
ing papers, courses.
Dedicated activities to shape the EC strategy for communication outreach were the
implementation of the principle expressed in EC key documents on communicating
nanotechnology (64): this has enabled the identification of two main axes for communi-
E ARE
cation, to match the objectives indicated in the previous sections, which will become
the object for future EC-funded actions. The main outcome has been to identify, seg-
ment and characterise key audiences, vehicles and messages for communication and
dialogue on nanotechnology (65).
Overall, this process made it possible for the EC to develop the present Communication
Roadmap, whose draft version was the key to the publication of a call on communication
outreach. This resulted in four projects being selected and negotiated by the end of 2008,
whose overall budget is around EUR 5 million. These projects, which started between
OW?
January and April 2009, are analysed in Section 5.1.7, and will contribute to developing
the principles of the present Roadmap.
64
(a) European
In addition, between 2003 and 2008 the Commission funded or directly published a wide Commission (2004):
Nanosciences and
range of information in many languages and for various age groups, using different sup- nanotechnologies: An
ports, such as booklets and other printed material, event-related material, Web products, action Plan for Europe
2005-2009, EC; (b)
audiovisuals. The intention was to make basic information available in the EU languages, European Commission,
complementing the products of the communication projects. Undoubtedly there is a role 2004, Towards a
European Strategy
for scientists here, who can explain the principles and applications of nanotechnology to for Nanotechnology,
the general public and the press. To support them in these public outreach activities, the COM(2004)338; EC,
Commission has made available a handbook called Communicating Science, a Survival Brussels, 2004 (http://
cordis.europa.eu/
Kit for Scientists. Different websites, on Europa and Cordis servers, http://ec.europa.eu/ nanotechnology/
nanotechnology/, http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/ and http://www.nanoforum. actionplan.htm).
org are useful resources. Studies on social acceptance indirectly linked with communica- 65
Bonazzi, M. (Ed.) (2007A
and 2007B), Bonazzi, M.
tion outreach have been carried out through several dedicated projects within FP6. More and Palumbo, J. (eds.),
details on these projects can be found in the Annex. (2007), quoted papers.
45
66
European Commis-
sion (2004): Survey
on communication
outreach in nanotechnol-
ogy through National
Contact Points, DG RTD
G.4, revised in 2008,
internal working paper. 2.6 Assessing the EC-developed
(a) European Commission
communication on
67
(2004): Nanotechnol-
ogy: innovation for a
future world; (b) Euro-
pean Commission (2004):
Nanosciences and
nanotechnology
nanotechnologies: An
action Plan for Europe
2005-2009; (c) Euro- The communication outreach potential of all the above-mentioned EC communication
pean Commission (2004): products has been assessed via a survey carried out through National Contact Points of
Towards a European Strat-
egy for Nanotechnology, the Directorate Industrial Technologies (66).
COM(2004)338; EC, Brus-
sels, 2004 (http://cordis.
europa.eu/nanotechnol-
ogy/actionplan.htm); (d)
2.6.1 Communication materials
WHERE
European Commission
(2004): Nanotechnology
68

in the ERA, EC, 2004.
(a) European Com-
and methods
mission (2005): EU
Technology Platform
on Nanomedicine; (b) Future scope for improvement depends on a sound evaluation of EC communication
European Commis- developed so far. Nanotechnology communication products have been grouped here ac-
sion (2004): Vision
2020:Nanoelectronics cording to the means (i.e. the vehicle) by which they can get to their audience, reflecting
at the centre of change. the overall picture developed by the Directorate Industrial Technologies, Unit nano- and
69
European Com- converging sciences and Technologies.
mission (2005):
WE NO
Nanotechnology in Eu-
rope: an integrated and
responsible approach. A. Print material: Booklets (67); Reports (68); Posters (69); Magazine/Newsletters (selected
70
European Commission contributions (70)); Project summaries & leaflets (selected (71)).
(2006): RTD magazine,
e.g. ‘RTD special issue
on nanomedicine’, 2006 B. Audiovisual material: exhibitions (72), Videos (73); Interactive exhibition (selected (74));
edition; CORDIS focus General audiovisual presentations (75); Project-specific presentations (selected (76)).
No 22, 2006 – Exploring
the nano-world No 22.
71
Selected examples: (a) C. Participative events: Conferences, meetings, events (selected) (77), workshops in EU
Frontiers; (b) Nano2life;
(c) Nanodialogue; (d) science-museums (selected) (78); Technology platform-related events.
Ipart-nanotox; (e) nano-
Road; (f) Nanoresearch
project scales up for com- D. Web-based material: web pages and forums (79).
mercialisation. A similar
leaflet has been recently
presented at ECSITE Different surveys aimed at various groups of communication users (National Contact
Conference (Milan, June
2009) by the NANO- Points, EC civil servants, plus an informal network of nano-information consumers) have
TOTOUCH project on evaluated the quantity and quality of all the information conveyed so far. It has been
communication outreach,
presenting interesting suggested that the appropriate measure of outreach for EC developed communication
‘hands-on’ improvements.
72
Nanodialogue project
(2005) (http://www.
ecsite-conference.net/
content/user/File/gug-
lielmo%20maglio%20
nanodialogue.pps)
(a) European Commission
(2003 and 2004): Nano-
technology (2003 & 2004
editions); (b) European
Commission (2005): Nan-
otechnology: the next
dimension (2005 edition).
46
73
ibidem.
Exhibits developed by
74
products should cover all the different communication categories, which have been clus- Nanodialogue project,
whose outreach has been
tered as follows: estimated around 1 million
visitors over the year 2006.
75
European Commission
1. information on fundamentals (2004): How can we
explain what is meant by
nanotechnology? Power
2. general information Point presentation by
Renzo Tomellini, HoU,
distributed in selected
3. project & call specific information school networks in the EU.
76
On the European Com-
mission intranet see G:\
4. S&T information G4\PO_Work_Area\
PowerPoints\Project_
presentations online.
5. applications and markets.
E ARE
77
Main events are
considered: Euronano-
forum 2003-2005-2007
A general survey was carried out by CORDIS and is available at the quoted sites (80); a (proceedings & post-
further specific survey set on the nanotechnology web page could allow to fine-tune this ers); Communicating
European Research,
preliminary picture. EC, Brussels, 14-15
November 2005 (http://
ec.europa.eu/research/
conferences/2005/
cer2005/index_en.html);
exhibitions in eight
EU science-museum
developed by the
OW?
project Nanodialogue.
78
Euronanoforum 2003-
2005-2007 (proceedings
& posters); exhibitions
in science centres
from eight EU Member
States developed by the
project Nanodialogue.
79
(a) Nanotechnology
CORDIS website (http://
www.cordis.lu/nano-
technology/ and http://
www.nanoforum.org).
80
Main features of CORDIS
surveys: http://user-
survey.cordis.europa.eu/
online. More informa-
tion on the size of
target audience amongst
CORDIS registered users
by the strings NMP and
nanotechs in http://stats-
cordis.mainstrat.com/
logs/php/index.php?mo
de=day&year=2008&m
> 081105&section=Other
Indicators online. More
information on visits
to FP7-NMP available
at http://stats-cordis.
mainstrat.com/logs/php/
servicios/index.php?mo
de=month&d=&month=
10&year=2008&week=
&service=302&service=
307&section=Generales
(update: October 2008).
47
WHERE
WE NO
Telling scientific facts through stories and through real people, audiovisuals reach large
audiences. Pedagogic presentations address school pupils, two DVDs initiate an EC
video trilogy on nanotechnology targeting youngsters and the general public
2.6.1.1 A three-step method matrix

This well-tested model is meant to assess the outreach of each communication product.
81
Its basic pattern
has been evicted And this is how it works.
from literature and
field studies, see
Annex (CITIZENS’ 1. The information content of any message has been scored for each communication
DECLARATION ON THE
CITY OF TOMORROW product in terms of information points (from not relevant = score 0, to very high =
(2005); WEB LINKS: score 5). All products belonging to the same communication vehicle such as print,
COMMUNICATION
PLAN (2),(3), (5), (9), (21),
audiovisuals, events and Web (please see Annex) are taken into account and averaged
(26), (30); WEB LINKS: at any one time.
COMMUNICATION
VEHICLES for
AUDIENCES, (4), (9), 2. A different sensitivity is attributed to each audience, depending both on the message
(12), (13), (18), (27, and the vehicle used to convey it (81), via an assessment matrix (please see Annex).
pp.17-19), and assessed
by informal networks The following audiences are considered: Industry, Academy, NCPs, NGOs, Nano-
of governance experts. consumers, Media, Schools, Educated Public and General Public.
48
3. The communication outreach is evaluated in terms of percentage message coverage
for each vehicle per audience. The average outreach of main audiences is then cal-
culated. This enables to assess the average outreach for the given audiences relating
to each message conveyed via a certain vehicle, e.g. Information on fundamentals via
print material. This measure gives an idea of how effective communication for a given
set of audiences may be, and how effectively a message and its information content
are conveyed via a given vehicle to a selection of audiences.
This analysis enables us to assess the figures for communication and dialogue outreach
according to products and audience (Figures 5 and 6; more details on data and formula
in the Annex).
E ARE
2.6.1.2 Outreach formula
The value of COMMUNICATION OUTREACH is assessed in information points, measured
in decimals (function of audience, message, vehicle); this depends on both SENSITIVITY
(which is regarded as a function of audience, vehicle, message) and the INFORMATION
CONTENT (which is treated as a function of message and vehicle).
OW?
2.6.1.3 Coverage
■■ Messages: Overall, the main messages of the current communication activities are
expected to be focused on Project & Call specific info, Applications & Markets and
S&T info, while General information is slightly less covered and Fundamentals are by
far the least represented.
■■ Vehicles: Overall, printed material and the Web are expected to be the most used
vehicle, while Events and Audiovisuals are less used. Print material, the Web and
Events are good for coverage of Project & Call specific info, Applications & Markets,
S&T info and General information. Audiovisuals are good for Fundamentals and Ap-
plication & Markets.
■■ Audiences: Communication addressing schools, media, NGOs, Nano-consumers and

general public appears to be less effective than the more technical one addressing sci-
entists, industry and the educated public. Each audience can be reached in different
ways, according to the vehicle used and the message conveyed.
As a consequence, different degrees of outreach are achieved. Values are calculated for
each audience and then averaged. All this reflects the communication choice developed
so far by the EC.
49
2.6.2 Results and discussion

The analysis resulting from this methodology allows us to assess the coverage figures of
messages according to the vehicle (Figure 4) and of communication and dialogue out-
reach according to products and audiences (Figures 5 and 6; more details on data in the
Annex). The following figures have been calculated on the basis of the feedback received
82
Data reworked from
by the multipliers (e.g. teachers), via direct downloads or e-mails. In case of videos, these
European Commission are just a rough estimate, as an average number of 10 end users by multiplier are assumed.
(2004): Survey on These figures show that more exhibitions and audiovisuals are effective in reaching a
in nanotechnology broad public, but much more dialogue is needed. Overall, about 2.4 million people repre-
through National sent the cumulative outreach from 2005 to 2008, where the exhibitions and audiovisuals
Contact Points, DG RTD
G.4, revised in 2008, take the lion’s share. Most of this outreach community has been identified, and it is safe
internal working paper. to say that the general public is the most important part of it.
Figure 4. Coverage of messages (in decimals) by vehicle for EC-developed

communication on nanotechnology (2005-2008) (82)
Coverage MESSAGE by VEHICLE
Fundamental PINT MATERIAL

8 on N&N WEBS
EVENTS
AUDIOVISUALS
4
Application General
& Markets Information
S&T Project-specific
Info
50
Figure 5. EC-developed communication and dialogue outreach by product (83)
Communication
Outreach by product 2005 2006 2007 2008
Exhibitions (e.g. 30 000 330 000 1 130 000 430 000

Nanodialogue) (prototype)
and events
DVD (1) Videos1 210 1 820 1 920 1 020
DVD (2) Videos2 1 210 1 320 1 520 1 220
Audiovisual 1 200 1 420 2 110 1 830

presentation for
youngsters3
Printed material 1 245 2 459 3 520 2 890

(estimated)
Scientific and 23 720 34 115 27 145 35 606

project events (estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated)
web page 37 200 (approx) 42 150 193 395 96 066

(approx) (projected)
Totals (estimated) 96 790 415 290 1 361 617 570 640

Cumulative totals 2 444 337
years 2005-2008
(estimated)
Figure 6. EC-developed communication and dialogue outreach by audience (84)
Direct communication
outreach by audience 2005 2006 2007 2008
Lay public 30 000 330 000 830 000 830 000

(prototype)
Media 210 1 820 1 920 1 020
Youngsters 3 410 2 740 3 630 3 150
National Contact 1 245 2 459 3 520 2 890 83
European Commis-
Points (estimated) sion (2004): Survey
on communication
outreach in nanotechnol-
Industry 3 720 4 115 5 145 5 606 ogy through National
(estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated) Contact Points, DG RTD
Researchers 37 200 42 150 193 395 96 066 internal working paper.
(estimated) (estimated) (projected) 84
European Commission
(2004): Survey on
Totals (estimated) 77 790 385 290 1 039 617 937 740 communication outreach
in nanotechnology
Cumulative totals through National
2 440 437 Contact Points, DG RTD
years 2005-2008
(estimated) internal working paper.
51
Outreach on dialogue
by product 2005 2006 2007 2008
Exhibition and events 310 3 121 8 014 1 400

(prototype) (estimated)
Open Web - - 320 145

consultation
Scientific Events 3 372 5 115 4 145 4 606

(estimated) (estimated) (estimated) (estimated)
Totals 5 687 10 242 14 486 8 159

(estimated)
Cumulative totals 38 574

years 2005-2008
(estimated)
Figure 6.1. EC-developed communication and dialogue outreach by product
2008
2007
2006
Audiovisuals
School material
Printed material
Events
2005
Web
Exhibitions
0
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
0
0
20
40
60
80
00
20
1
52
Figure 6.2. EC-developed communication and dialogue outreach by audience
2 000 000
2008
2007
2006
1 600 000
2005
1 200 000
800 000
400 000
ts
rs
ry
ic
er
C
lis
te
bl
st
ch
N
gs
du
na
pu
ar
un
In
ur
y
se
Yo
La
Jo
Re
Figure 6.3. EC-developed outreach on dialogue by audience
2008
2007
2006
Exhibitions and events

Scientific events
2005
Open web consultation
3 000 6 000
53
2.7 Conclusions: future

EC communication on
nanotechnology
The various assessments of these communication activities are clearly pointing to the
need for more communication efforts to reach effectively selected audiences on nano-
technology. General recommendations can be drawn from these projects, especially from
the outcomes from the series of workshops integrated with an open Web consultation set
up by the European Commission in 2007 (85) (see Section 2.4.3).
WHERE
Two main points of this exercise stand out.
■■ First,the key importance of multipliers, i.e. target audiences such as journalists or

teachers who, in turn, have an important role in communicating with a larger public.
As they have the potential to reach so many more individuals, they should be the
primary audiences to reach. However, this does not rule out the need to address the
broad public directly with appropriate actions.
■■ Second, the fact that some audiences are best reached during their ‘professional’ (or
WE NO
school) time, while others would be best reached during their leisure time (86).
85
and Palumbo, J. (eds.),
(2007), quoted papers.
86
Cobb, M.D.; Macoubrie,
J, (2002): quoted paper.
54
E ARE
Teachers and explainers in science centres are efficient communication multipliers,
OW?
so they are a primary target to attain in communicating nanotechnology (courtesy of
Obviously, it would be really hard to effectively target all the selected audiences with
the same accuracy, especially on a continental scale, as you would have to compete for
attention in leisure time and spaces. The information deluge on any selected public is so
enormous now that it takes a big effort just to break the attention barrier. Any effort by
the European Commission on all these targets risks being spread far too thin to have a
significant impact.
In light of this, the first solution appears to be more feasible and effective. This means
concentrating resources on multipliers and people carrying an influence – (teachers, sci-
ence centres communicators, who are pivotal (87), opinion leaders, opinion makers, media
in general, scientists, reporters, policymakers).
If these people are not ready to play a role, communication projects aimed at the
general public are bound to lack a key resource. It is extremely important that scien-
tists work with multipliers, as they are: (i) competent in this extremely technical and
complex field, providing reliable information, and (ii), the most trusted by the public
87
when it comes to explaining the impact of technology on our life (88). So they should J, (2004): quoted paper
be more visible in the specialised and general press, providing interviews on expert 88
BMRB international
panels and debates. (2004): quoted paper.
55
This is a first set of recommendations for the immediate future:
■■ communication via media audiovisuals, television and the Web should be improved;
■■ games, competitions and contests should be promoted as an effective tool to chal-

lenge young people’s imagination and engagement;
■■ hands-on, hearts-on, minds-on approaches, expressive languages and art should be

strengthened as appealing ways to dialogue effectively with selected audiences;
■■ the growing interest for selected audiences as main target of communication efforts
points to the fact that segmenting of selected audiences and knowing more about
WHERE
them becomes a crucial issue;
■■ bringing researchers to science centres and schools is necessary to complement the

conventional approach of bringing schools to the laboratories.
Future communication projects should start by choosing a specific target audience in

professional/school time: the more specific the targets, the better, as all subsequent deci-
sions depend on that. Appropriate segmenting of selected audiences will be a crucial
issue in shaping any project. Additionally, expressive languages and art should be a pri-
WE NO
ority channel. An excellent way to stimulate the curiosity and participation of selected
audiences should be based on games, contests or competitions. (89)
All sources of the 2007 EC communication exercise agreed on the need to guarantee
high quality of information to begin with, in order to create attention and awareness.
Since the young target groups are overwhelmed and ‘spoiled’ with an abundance of in-
formation (90), advertisements, immersive games and virtual worlds every day, all com-
89
European Commission
(2009): Art and Science:
munication actions should be chosen very carefully (e.g. the attempt to compete with a
creative fusion, EC, multimillion dollar professional PC or 3D-console immersive game for communicating
Brussels, 2009. nano is likely to fail). The focus should be set on an outstanding quality in design, imple-
90
Stares, S. (2003): mentation and content of each project/action (91) rather than creating a large quantity of
quoted paper.
output with an average appearance that does not stand out.
91
TA-Swiss project (2006):
Swiss publifocus on
nanotechnologies, Finally, this analysis allowed us to identify clear recommendations for communication
(2006), TA-SWISS, the
Centre for Technology activities addressing selected audiences in both professional/school and leisure time, al-
Assessment. though the first line of action should be prioritised.
56
Interacting with nano-objects inspires intellectual curiosity (courtesy of Brida)
E ARE
OW?
Hands-on, minds-on, hearts-on: artistic languages can trigger emotions to spark off
intellectual comprehension (courtesy of Brida)
57
WHERE
Expressive languages such as theatre can put on show crucial questions to engage with
nanotechnology (courtesy of NANODIALOGUE project)
WE NO
58
EC POLICYMAKERS´ FORUM
Interviews with Herbert von Bose
and Christos Tokamanis
Herbert von Bose
E ARE
Director of Industrial Technologies,
Directorate G, DG Research of the European Commission
‘We need to take the people with us about nano’

Q. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first ever Communication Roadmap about
nanotechnology by an institution such as the European Commission. It goes well beyond
OW?
a strategy document. It’s striking that the same Research & Technology Directorate is also
very much involved with funding projects aimed at public engagement about nanotech-
nology. What are the reasons for this?
A. We have always founded our approach on two pillars: we said right from the start
we would not only look into the promises of nano, but at the same time we would also
look at its potential risk and risk mitigation. We have always had a responsible approach
to nanotechnology, which means we have always done the two things together. But this
is not enough: we have to take the society, public opinion, with us. We must have the
societal dialogue, a very early idea which you actually find in the 2005 Action Plan for
nanotechnology. This is the third element we need.
If people don’t know, they have a tendency to be afraid; instead, they need to understand
what the promise and the potential risk of nanotechnology are, and to talk about it. At the
very beginning we started mainly by taking the informed community with us: we had this
exhibition travelling through universities or academies of science. Now we see that nano
is becoming increasingly industrial, or heading into applications. So, the more our daily
lives are touched by it, the more we have to see how risks that might be involved can be
controlled and make sure that we include a broader public in this debate.
You see it also if you look around in the Commission’s services. You now have many other
services, be it in health, environment, employment, enterprise, who are asking questions:
what are the health advantages and potential risks; what will happen to the products with
nano content which one day will have to be recycled; what happens to the workers on
59
the production site; and how can we measure nanoparticles, e.g. for the chemical direc-
tives and REACH. It is one thing to say we want to control it and another thing to say by
which tools to control it, so we have to look at the whole life cycle of nano. We are get-
ting more and more interest from the other parts of the house to protect the citizens, the
consumers, the workers, in order to make sure that nano delivers its promises and does
not do any harm.
It makes absolutely no sense to hide things, because then you would be blamed for not
being transparent, so it’s better to say everything you know right from the beginning and
inform the public, as we are trying to do with this initiative. This is a very important thing
because sometimes researchers have a tendency to believe that what they do is good
anyway, and don’t see the need to communicate it. But there could be resistance from an
WHERE
uninformed public, if it perceives that the potential risks might have been insufficiently
addressed, or that not enough research or money might have been put into nano.
Q. This Communication Roadmap mentions ‘a moral duty’ by EC policymakers working

on research and technological development to inform Europeans about nano in an impar-
tial way, with the wellbeing of citizens and sustainable economic growth of EU society first
and foremost in mind. Will this document contribute to good governance?
A. Governance is a very important issue in this whole nano debate. At this moment,
WE NO
perhaps the most visible governance part we have regards the Code of Conduct for nano
research and development. At the moment it’s still voluntary but we have a close rela-
tionship with the Member States: how we should behave, what we should do, who is
responsible. With respect to products, regulatory issues are dealt with by the respective
competent Commission services that are part of the inter-service group which supervises
the implementation of the Nano Action Plan. For example, aspects of worker protection
are the concern of DG Employment, while those of consumer protection fall under the
responsibility of DG SANCO.
With the ‘Nano Action Plan’ 2005-2009 having come to an end, we will submit another
report in the autumn and propose a new one to the new Commission. I can tell you now
the new Action Plan will have a very strong regulatory element as well. We first establish
where we need regulation in one area or another, then we target research to make sure
we get that regulation right, after which we can control it.
Q. Since public knowledge about nanotechnology is still so scarce and you aim to build
public trust with this formidable communication exercise, will such an effort go forth into
FP7 with further communication projects, about dialogue perhaps?
A. We would be very interested to do this. We would certainly like to see the dialogue go-
ing on, but also involve the Member States, particularly since at this moment we are a big
player and are responsible for one third of public funding and research in Europe, keeping
in mind that Member States are really major players, too. Besides, should some risk mate-
rialise with nano, this would destroy public trust in the technology considerably. It would
60
be in everybody’s interest if Member States cooperated on this question, in order to boost
public opinion in this respect and create confidence in this whole new technology. We
are obviously very pleased to take our responsibility but it would also be important that
Member States also adopted this philosophy and strategy.
Q. I can see this concept of dialogue running throughout the Communication Roadmap.
After your latest big effort, around EUR 5 million dedicated to nano communication proj-
ects which started this year, it seems to me the Commission wants to involve people in an
ever more direct way.
A. This is true, but of course it’s not so easy. We are now getting nano further out into
television and broader media, and we would be very interested in any new ways of
E ARE
communication: the aim is to have a much more interactive model. Should there be any
fears about nano, they should be addressed. If an individual nano particle turned out to
be dangerous, it would have to be embedded into a bigger structure to make it safe for
the consumer, then we would have to make sure that the production site is also safe and
finally look into recycling it safely for the environment. On the other hand, if it is simply
thrown away, we must still make sure that it does no harm to the environment. If there is
a health promise, like fighting cancer, public opinion responds very positively and most
people see it’s worth taking a risk. If nano involves, for instance, a cosmetics application,
people would like to be reassured of the safety of the product for both themselves and the
OW?
environment. We really have to look at the whole picture. It’s an issue of credibility.
Q. You mentioned the word ‘interactive’. How would you use the feedback from that
dialogue, presumably in FP7?
A. We would use that feedback in order to adapt our own communication strategies.
If we find that somebody is hesitating or has a bad feeling, we have to give a credible
answer. Of course we would take it into account and deal with it. As far as regulations
are concerned, we believe at this moment it’s not good to regulate technologies and even
better to regulate applications. In a way, the technology itself is innocent. It could also be
developed anywhere else in the world and you might end up having to face a problem
coming from somewhere else anyway. So, this is where the responsibility lies: how nano-
technology is being applied, because there can be so many totally different applications
of the same technology.
Q. In this Communication Roadmap it is clear that you want European research to be

driven responsibly, openly and accountably by taking public concerns into consideration;
but at the same time you also want the best scientific standards and maximum creativity.
A. Absolutely. We should allow researchers freedom. But there must be limiting condi-
tions. There is already the Code of Conduct, which is not a limitation, but a set of rules
about how to behave with nano. So they have limiting conditions for their research ac-
tivities and they know they are themselves accountable. Research normally knows no
boundaries because only in this way can you cross borders of knowledge and reach new
61
frontiers, provided it’s been carried out within the appropriate EU legislative framework.
But the question must be asked: if there is a risk is it too high – in which case we stop – or
can we control it and go ahead?
Q. Do you intend to do this through the media?
A. The media are the perfect multiplier for a large public. Schools and universities have
a more targeted public and in-focus information. The Internet could give us even more
interaction. I would be open to any solution as far as we can capture the views of the
people. As policymakers we have to ask ourselves: if people are afraid, what are they
afraid of? If these worries are justified, you would perhaps have to do more research. But
I think in many cases these fears are just due to a lack of knowledge.
WHERE
Q. And you have a whole cluster of projects which is dedicated to assessing risks.
A. That is true. Sometimes the application risks might have nothing to do with nano, but
the problem could lie with the product itself. Nano should not become an enemy; nano
should be the promise or the solution to many problems. People will only believe it’s
more of a promise than a threat if they understand it first and also become aware that any
potential risk is taken care of. There is still a long way to go, as far as knowledge about
nano is concerned. In the end, I am sure it will come down to any individual’s informed
WE NO
decision, whether to be treated with nanotherapy or not. But the biggest present danger
for the whole nano debate is that somebody might hear about nano for the first time with
a negative, a priori connotation.
Q. Without engaging the lay public about nano, do you think the whole discourse risks
being left to the extreme positions representing those who are absolutely favourable and
those who are relentlessly contrary to nano?
A. That’s right, and it would be unfair. We from the public authority have to tell the truth
on both sides. I’ll give you an example. The Austrians are very keen on nano, but they
have given all the risk and ethical assessment to the Austrian Academy of Science as an
independent body with a very high reputation, so that public opinion can be assured that
they are going to look into all the different angles of nano. I think this is quite an interest-
ing approach, from a national perspective.
Q. Will this direct communication with the public take place within FP7?
A. We will use FP7 money to do this. We can do it because with the agreement of the
Member States we have been allowed to spend public money not only for the hard re-
search but also for support activities like communication projects. We would like to build
on this communication effort as an integral part of our research activities during FP7. The
societal debate will be part of the forthcoming Action Plan 2010-2014, which will overlap
with FP7. We will very much insist on having the societal dialogue in this very important
document again, so it will become part of the Commission’s policy, as it was in the past.
62
We’ll have to see what the next Framework Programme brings, but I have no doubt that
this question will continue to be of high importance in the longer term, so it’s not a one-
off. As nano moves increasingly beyond the laboratory into applications, we need to see
what the people’s new questions are going to be, and provide appropriate answers.
We are going into the full life cycle of the product, which needs to be dealt with responsi-
bly, and carefully planned at the very moment of the production. In this respect we would
rely on the experience of many industries which are already doing a good job today.
Q. Quite a few scientists themselves, such as some physicians, admit to being rather out
of their league about nano.
E ARE
A. All the more reason why with nano you need the full multidisciplinary scientific picture
to be well in place for the next generation. If you have a new chemical product, for in-
stance, you would need to look at the economic and ethical implications of it at the same
time. I’m sure young people would be very able and keen to pick all the different aspects
up at the same time, and do fantastic things.
Q. Coming, as it is, out of the cutting edge of EU nano research itself, this is a truly novel
communication approach for Europeans.
OW?
A. He who brings the positive message first has a certain advantage. Then it becomes
clear that it’s always a trade-off. By developing innovative neuronal nano-engineered
biochips we can help people with amputations, neurological and neurodegenerative dis-
eases, spinal and brain disabilities (such as spinal injury, dystonia, epilepsy, Parkinson’s
disease, eating disorders) to repair or replace the altered or damaged functions. Or we
can treat cancer patients with nanoparticles targeting tumour cells more efficiently and
bearably than by using chemotherapy, so we can improve their quality of life; but we
would just need to make sure that the applied nano-engineered chips and nanoparticles
enclosed in the innervations or flowing in the bloodstream are so well embedded and
controlled that they cannot produce harmful side-effects.
So, let’s try to be the first to communicate.
63
Christos Tokamanis
Head of Unit for Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies
Directorate G, DG Research of the European Commission
WHERE
‘Maintaining the people´s trust about nano’
Q. You have said that ‘the EC has the trust of the people about nanotechnology, and we
should keep it’. Does this Communication Roadmap set out with such a purpose?
A. Nanotechnology has been communicated in different media, from science fiction to

scientific magazines, sometimes by people who do not really know what nano is. People
WE NO
listen attentively and have an idea, but they don’t really understand the real essence of
nanotechnology. Even researchers conducting research at the atomic level stay in their
domain and may not fully realise the implications of it, let alone how to communicate the
results of their research to the wider public.
When people think about nanotechnology, they tend to believe the benefits will emerge
in 20 years’ time. But again, this is just speculation about the benefits. In the short-term,
society experiences marginal improvements in product performance. Let’s not forget it’s
the promise of radical change that brings all the funding and politicians wanting to sup-
port it. Our intention is to put a system into place that will really deliver on that promise.
We have a huge task in our hands: we have been given a lot of money to invest for some-
thing which it has to be quantitatively defined for its end-point. Our job is, first of all, to
put the development process into context; be it for environment, health, energy or manu-
facturing. The whole outline of such roadmap needs to be signposted, and as part of the
Communication Awareness campaign, this includes signposting the opinion of the people.
We need to know public opinion from all walks of life, social, professional, interests, and
understand what nanotechnology means to them and identify their real expectations.
We started this campaign knowing that people have vastly different perceptions about
science. But if we take the spin away from the marketing of science and technology, the
reality is that we are still far from that promise. Bringing all the benefits to everyday life
will take long years of very hard work. But we should always bear in mind that, in terms
of Science and Technology, Europe is in a very good position. It has outstanding scientists
64
and centres of excellence and has very strong companies in the chemical industry, which
makes the nanomaterials; aeronautics, automotive, construction industries. This means
we have world class users of such nano-technologies. We need to put all these people
together to bring the outcome of research to fruition by reaching the industry that is going
to turn it into a competitive product, fulfilling what the consumer wants.
For me, what nanotechnology represents to consumers is the ultimate, tailor-made prod-
uct: a medicine designed to be taken in the morning or in the evening to treat some
person’s medical condition; every household being turned into an energy production,
storage and distribution entity; distributive manufacturing with versatile machines pro-
ducing items according to the latest customer specifications. This would mean a really
responsive society which would not waste materials and/or energy so everyone would
E ARE
benefit from these savings. But we are still too far away from such applications, and at the
moment what makes the headlines is the ‘easy part’ of nanotechnology. But we are really
talking about here is something totally different, namely the ability to design, engineer and
produce things at a nanoscale, with nano objects in a new production environment and
with markedly different consumer patterns and behaviour. The Commission has always
been very vigilant, so why not reflect this better and make it clear? We have been invited
to open our labs, and the scientific press really loves it. Why not broadcast conferences
from time to time, for instance with respect to huge problems such as water treatment?
OW?
Q. What are the main ethical reasons and social responsibility concerns underlying this
Communication Roadmap?
A. We have an obligation first of all – as outlined in the Nano Action Plan (2005-2009)
– to include all activities necessary to promote nanoscience and nanotechnology to the
wider public. We knew the problems with asbestos and GMOs and we are aware that
for consumers, food, clothing and environment are very sensitive topics. How do you
measure it and how do you communicate, for example, red-blood cells’ function, which
occurs within 2 to 5 nanometres in diameter? Here, we are discussing objects which are
smaller than a red blood cell. But, as we say in the Communication Roadmap, since our
funding seeks to investigate such scientific facts, it would be appropriate that the facts are
communicated to people by those who generate them, yet with the help of the media us-
ing language familiar to the public.
Society sometimes seems to lose confidence in science and technology, but people keep
using it every day, because the positives are bigger than the negatives. However, with
nanotechnology we have to be really careful, because the impact will be huge. We don’t
want to be in a position to be criticised. Think of what asbestos was in the 1960s: it was
considered a good, useful material and nobody thought about the threat it represented.
In 10 years’ time, what happens if something we produce is suddenly proven to be unsafe
because the science was rushed? We don’t want to make this mistake. This is our ethical
and social responsibility as the Commission. The other thing is, to be able to progress
with the right level of funding as well as people’s confidence; people need to make an
informed decision based on the most up-to-date facts. At the moment, we are talking
65
about products such as sunscreens. People would want to be assured that the nanopar-
ticles used therein are safe and they are not diffused through the skin and accumulate in
the body. Such are the present concerns that lead us to examine guidelines for responsible
Nano-developments not only as Europe, but as an international community through, for
example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The
sponsored projects by members, target the analyses of exposure and risks and aim at
reaching consensus on how to assess and manage risks for 14 families of manufactured
nanoparticles that you would usually find in consumer products. And this is only the be-
ginning. Such international efforts are not known by the wider public. We are talking here
only about the first generation of nanomaterials, which are passive. But the complete story
is that we are already working at research level on the third generation of nano-systems,
which are active nanosystems, in which the nanoparticles as entities are lost and you have
WHERE
the functions you expect to see from a nanodevice. The safety and health implications of
such devices have not been considered yet.
Q. How are you going to keep the public engaged in this, in the future? Do you want to
build on the present communication projects, which are aimed to give balanced informa-
tion about nano to different target audiences, with a further communication effort?
A. This is just the beginning. It’s about informing people about things which are correct,
based on facts. We want to create a dedicated Internet platform for continuous dialogue.
WE NO
What we need to establish is an Observatory for Nano-dialogue which continuously
monitors consumer opinion about nanotechnologies, the same way we conduct market
surveys to understand trends in public opinion. The socioeconomic part of the research
has been developing the tools that will give people the opportunity to get involved and
express their opinion about a message or a product. Then we will have what we call tech-
nical democracy. It means that public opinion will be monitored on a continuous basis
through Web-based measures that could be picked up by other media. Now is the ap-
propriate time to monitor what people really think about nanotechnologies and promote
an evidence-based dialogue.
Q. This technical democracy Web platform promises to become a highly valuable media
resource, too. Is this one of your aims?
A. We want the right cognitive tools to monitor and capture public opinion, structure it,
correlate it and transfer it into messages that policymakers would use for more effective
policymaking. We can have regular conferences where we invite NGOs and the media
to express their opinion, but this is limited to a point in time; it doesn’t give you a trend.
On the Web we could monitor how these opinions change, according to which socio-
economic group and geographic part of Europe. We know from demographic tests, for
instance, that Europeans to a large extent are very favourably disposed towards nano-
medicine. On the other hand, there is a risk of people becoming polarised over hypotheti-
cal questions and hypothetical answers. It’s what is called speculative ethics: you ask a
hypothetical question, and the speculative answer is taken as the answer to the hypotheti-
66
cal problem, which then makes the headlines, propagated by the media, and is quickly
turned into sensational news.
What do we have to offer instead is our good intentions, our honest, unbiased research,
which we want to make available to open review. We exist because we disseminate
the results of research for the benefit of our society; so why shouldn’t we disseminate
these results, not only for researchers or industries, but also for consumers? This is a very
important branch of a tree, which will provide protection for people under it. It means
that: we are responsible; we do not hold back on anything; we monitor public opinion
continuously. If we have technical democracy, we want to get the pulse of what people
really think. Then, if we are doing something inappropriate, we could correct ourselves.
If it turns out that people are favourable to other areas of nano but do not want nano in,
E ARE
say, their food, we will have to take heed of such an opinion.
Q. If you had a dialogue through dedicated Web resources and other media in order to
bring young people on board as well, this wouldn’t be of course a formal consultation. But
wouldn’t it come rather close to being an informal one?
A. If we knew something was very controversial, we would have to undertake a consulta-

tion from a formal point of view. But now the smart thing to do is to start the dialogue and
outreach at the same level as the research and keep them at the same level, balanced.
OW?
Common sense dictates that with publicly funded research the public should always be
consulted. You should not leave it for later. The public can give us informed feedback if
we inform it correctly. For example, through our three-minute audiovisual teasers people
will get at least the right message, and if they are curious and interested, they will come
back and look for more information and start talking to each other online.
Q. Your new ‘Nano Action Plan’ is starting next year and will be going on until 2015, and
it is bound to include a lot of strong regulatory work. Will this be part of the dialogue?
A. We are already doing research on the third generation of nano-systems, but we are
now talking about the regulation of the first generation of nano, which is about passive
systems. We are already two generations down the road in terms of research. We must
find ways that regulatory aspects are developed in parallel with the introduction of in-
novative nano-enabled products.
Risk assessment and management is assured via REACH but the implementation frame-
work specific for products containing manufactured nano-particles has yet to be devel-
oped. There is a problem: you only register chemicals above 1 ton. For Nano-materials
tonnage considerations for registration seem not to be sufficient; additional metrics have
to be devised and put in place. What kind of metrics are you going to use? Before ask-
ing or informing the public for such issues we must first clarify for ourselves all policy
making options and implications that have to be considered. The new Nano-Action Plan
would be strategic in so far as it would deepen the degree of integration of all elements
of Nanotechnologies development forging strong links between research and innovation
67
on one hand, and delivery of benefits to society with a fact-based regulation and overall
responsible governance on the other. Getting the policy mix right is essential in rewarding
the fast take-up of the latest nano-developments without biasing economic competitive-
ness or downgrading health, safety, environmental, social or ethical issues.
Q. As you go along, this open communication exercise will take care of all these
aspects, too.
A. Exactly. The promise is continuity: in sending the message out, receiving the feedback,
analysing what it means and deciding how we should behave. Things are changing so fast,
that people might have stayed with the impression of what they heard a couple of years
ago, so how do we inform them of the latest developments? There is this tree of promise of
WHERE
nanotechnology. The fruits of this tree will be better healthcare, more renewable energy
sources, a much more versatile manufacturing system, and all kinds of benefits. All these
fruits are hanging from the same tree. There could be big branches and small branches of
communication. We want these branches to grow and feed from the same roots.
Q. There seems to be an overlap between the Action Plan, which goes up to 2015, and
FP7, which ends in 2013. Is the setting up of the Observatory Nano-dialogue included in
this time-frame?
WE NO
A. Yes. We are proposing this platform, whose target will be continuous dialogue with
everybody, in 2011. This would be based on already developed tools that monitor public
opinion. Now we have the means: Internet and online media have become mainstream.
We will have to kick-start the platform, but then the Member States will have to be in-
volved. We would like to have associations in each Member State that would be part
of the system, to which all the Member States will contribute. Member States will have
their own monitoring posts and they will conduct their own continuous surveys of public
opinion. The unique thing about that is that the questions will be the same for everybody.
If there are any local trend differences, they will be part of the system but they will not
change the initial architecture and aims.
Now we have a new call, and I am thinking of something substantial to set up this dia-
logue platform. I hope that in the end we will agree to have it as part of the new Nano
Action Plan for continuous monitoring of public opinion, where people will be able to
record what they think. This will be our online dialogue. We will initiate it, but once it’s
there, it will belong to the public. We have tools for mapping controversy; we will have to
have a system of analysis in place to capture random remarks in order to discern trends.
For us, this strategy should be part and parcel of the whole nanotechnology development.
It needs to be established as an ongoing process providing continuous feedback of what
the public thinks of Nanotechnology.
68
Q. Such a system would really break the mould of established institutional communica-
tion models.
A. This is exactly what it would try to do. If public opinion has been misguided by a bad
event, or by false assumptions, it can be also rightly guided towards understanding the
right things which are based on facts. So we can answer all these searching questions,
such as whether we have considered this risk or the other, and so on. The EU’s framework
programme for research is investing yearly EUR 600 million on Nanotechnology, but in
comparison very few reports are produced that bring these results to the attention of the
public. We have excellent results that have not yet been communicated. This time we aim
to have objectivity, rather than subjectivity, in this dialogue exercise. The beauty of it is
we can also feed the outcome of all this communication work back to researchers so as to
E ARE
increase their appreciation of what their work really means to the public.
OW?
69
WHERE DO WE
PART III.
WANT TO BE?
Targeting, structuring and designing
the Communication Roadmap
Policymakers recognise that it is crucial for them to develop an appropriate Communi-
cation Roadmap in order to foster good governance and appropriate social dialogue on
technology. In fact, as science and research achievements can affect society deeply, it is
reasonable to group all the dynamics, forces and achievements associated with nanotech-
nology into an all-inclusive perspective.
The famous ‘Five Ws’ strategy seems to be of paramount importance at this stage, as
the nanotechnology debate is becoming increasingly sensitive for both society and EU
funding institutions, such as the European Commission, DG RTD, Directorate Industrial
Technology. It’s a classic case of identifying why, who and how to communicate what to
whom about nanotechnology.
3.1 At a glance: The ‘Five Ws’ of

nano-communication (plus
three welcome additions)
This Communication Roadmap is all about (i) increasing the consensus between stake-
holders, the whole of society and policymakers to support EU decision-making on
integrated, safe and responsible nanotechnology and (ii) enhancing the image of the EC
as an impartial, transparent and trustworthy communicator on nanotechnology.
In order to get there, appropriate communication promoting knowledge and awareness in

target audiences comes first; dialogue and engagement are the next indispensable steps.
There is a ‘Five Ws’ method to this framework, with three further, welcome additions:
WHY? The Goal: What does success look like?
WHO? The Actor: Who has the mandate to communicate?
WITH WHAT EFFECT? The Impact: What is it for?
70
TO WHOM? The Audience: Which audience should or could be reached?
HOW? The Vehicle: What is the appropriate support?
WHAT? The Message: Saying what?
WHERE and WHEN? The Schedule: What is the appropriate moment and place?
HOW WELL? The Score: What is the appropriate moment and place?
3.2 Getting deeper into

the big questions of
nano-communication
1. WHY? The Goal. What does success look like?
Increasing consensus-based support to EU policymaking on responsible

nanotechnology
1
COM(2004) 338
2. WHO? The Actor. Who has the mandate to communicate? eu/nanotechnology/
actionplan.htm).
In this case, the European Commission, thus shared by DG Industrial Technologies, Unit 2
COM (2005) 243
G.4, Nano- and converging Sciences and Technologies, in coordination with all other eu.int/nanotechnol-
relevant institutional services relevant for communication. The EC has adopted the Com- ogy/actionplan.htm).
munication ‘Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology’ (1) and the ‘Nanosciences 3
Recent social science
and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009’ (2). Within this framework literature, corroborated
by the conclusions of
the Unit has identified that communication and dialogue on nanotechnology research is different recent inter-
also a key part of its mandate, which includes the full legitimacy for launching a Com- national events, e.g.
Communicating Science,
munication Roadmap on nanotechnology and implementing its associated actions. panel sessions 3 to 5;
Gover & science, con-
3. WITH WHAT EFFECT? The Impact. What is it for? clusive session; Citizens’
declaration on the city of
tomorrow, p.2-4, shows
(a) increase consensus among stakeholders, the whole of society and policymakers that two main axes are
crucial for developing
on EU decision-making in nanotechnology; socially sustainable
governance for S&T
systems: (i) appropri-
(b) enhance and build on the image of the EC as impartial, transparent and trust- ate communication
worthy communicator on nanotechnology. and (ii) participatory
mechanisms fostering
dialogue with society.
This can be attained by: (I) an ATTITUDE CHANGE with these expected effects: (i) These actions are
increase of knowledge and awareness of nanotechnology in civil society; (3) and (ii) expected to promote in
civil society both aware-
build-up of confidence and trust, enhancing the EC’s image as a reliable, transparent ness and engagement
and trustworthy communicator on nanotechnology; (II) BEHAVIOUR CHANGE with on nanotechnology.
71
these expected effects: promoting dialogue and engagement with stakeholders, and
increasing consensus to support EC policies on nanotechnology. Each result should
be judged by an assessment of current situation, the design of the desired situation,
identification of Calls to Action, each one SMART, i.e. Specific, Measurable, Achiev-
able, Reasonable, Timely. Accordingly, two clusters of Calls to Action are proposed
here: (i) developing appropriate communication (i.e. actions towards the information
society needs to know) and (ii) setting up relevant mechanisms for dialogue and en-
gagement between civil society and RTD policymakers for consensus-based support
to policymaking on responsible nanotechnology.
4. TO WHOM? The Audience. Which audience must, should, could be reached?
Selecting audiences is pivotal. Audiences should be homogeneous enough to be suc-

cessfully attainable. Homogeneous audiences are made of people who could meet on
the same market, i.e. sharing common needs and level of awareness. We should be
looking carefully at the people we have already reached, and single out the audiences
we are going to reach soon and those we should strategically reach further down the
line. Each communication activity by Unit G4 will start by identifying appropriate
target audiences which might be homogeneous enough to be considered an effective
target (i.e. young people, scientists, industry, business, policymakers, NGOs, media),
and messaging may vary accordingly. Tuning into our audience’s basic level of under-
standing will help us to select appropriate messages and shed light on how to deliver
them (e.g. media for the public, Web and videos for schools). Some basic questions
should be framed beforehand: (i) have they heard the message before? (ii) is there
previous knowledge of the message? (iii) what is the audience already thinking?
5. HOW? The Vehicle. What is the right support?
How is the information expected to be shown (e.g. cartoon, video, broadcasted on

television, schools, the Internet)? This choice will give Unit G4 a better way to hit the
bull’s eye. Vehicles may range from organising large communication events to publish-
ing a leaflet or newsletter on a web page, according to each message and frequency.
6. WHAT? The Message. What should we get across?
Which relevant and appropriate information will we be giving, e.g. nanotechnol-

ogy offers opportunities and risks? Balanced messages are modulated according to
audiences and possibly selected through SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Risks), e.g. nanotechnology can deliver better quality of life but as
it involves possible drawbacks it must be driven conscientiously, and this is precise-
ly what the EC is doing. Complete, impartial and accurate messages will be woven
through all of the communications materials produced as well as any speeches given.
It is obviously up to the audience to decide what to do with each message. This, at
the end of the day, is more important than what each message does to the audience
at the moment of delivery.
72
Turning a message into a real story is the only way to have a winner here. But pos-
sible conflicts of interest should be explained, and any omission of facts, risks and
uncertainties avoided. Additionally, it is important to examine the sensitivity of the
audience with respect to both vehicle and message. Generally speaking, a certain
audience shows different reactivity depending on the message and the vehicle used to
convey it. In fact, specific sensitive issues should be addressed properly, and particu-
larly (please see: Nanotech, Risk and sustainability, executive summary, 2005): (i) who
is going to benefit from this innovation; (ii) safety on potential toxicity of nanopar-
ticles on environment and nature, concerns about possible irremediable interferences
of nano man-made with natural systems; (iii) privacy concerns about the capabili-
ties of nano-devices to affect democratic freedom; (iv) decision-making: elitism of
information/intervention and access to nanotechnology and related socioeconomic
nano-divide, who is deciding and how citizens can influence decision-making; (v)
ethical and religious debate, life-related issues (e.g. production of ‘better humans’).
It is useful to look into anything that may be adversely affecting the communication,
e.g. disagreement with the approach, missing information, and previous knowledge
of the audience.
7. WHERE and WHEN? The Schedule. What is the appropriate moment and place?
This is about the space and time location of the communication actions. They depend
on the vehicle selected for the distribution channels, e.g. orientation and educational
sessions in science museums or on the Web during specific activities of FP7 projects,
such as providing a fact sheet to the ‘Nano Kit’ highlighting prototypes and market-
able products, success stories, learning modules, scenario-building games (e.g. on
different nano-based future societies). The combination vehicle/channel performs dif-
ferently with respect to the audience to be addressed (e.g. video on television or Web
or during school lessons).
8. HOW TO ASSESS? The Score. How well has it been done?
How effective is the Roadmap and associated actions? There are many ways to de-
termine a communication campaign’s success. Information can be gleaned in the
meantime by tracking visits to our Intranet or Internet site, to see if we are receiv-
ing more compliments and fewer complaints. We will need to make sure that the
combination of message, vehicle and distribution channel with respect to the target
audience is very effective. Integrated indicators are difficult to use, and the reliability
of their information is variable, mainly qualitative. However, we have tailor-made
some of them to better synthesise the overall performance of communication in terms
of the sensitiveness of the audience to a certain message conveyed through a specific
vehicle using appropriate channels, i.e. outputs (how many news releases lead to sto-
ries; distribution, circulation, contact figures), outtake (what the audience takes home)
and outcomes (change of attitude or behaviour), as described in Figure 7.
73
Figure 7. Outputs, outtakes and outcomes for the Communication Roadmap on nanotechnology
The ‘Ws’ OUTPUT OUTTAKES OUTCOMES
WHY ■■Gain in EC Perception of EC as: Increasing consensus-based

image support to EU policymak-
Specify what ■■transparent ing on responsible nanotech-
the goal of ■■EC trans- nology within society
communi- ■■impartial
parency,
cating is credibility and ■■trustworthy communicator on
accountability nanotechnology
WHO Identify in the EC Strengthen

■■ the role of EC as a Design and implement the
policy documents major reliable and trustworthy EC’s Communication Road-
Select who the legitimacy map and associated activities
has the communicator in nanotechnology
basis for commu-
mandate to nicate and through
communicate what services
WITH WHAT (I) ATTITUDE ■■Improve society’s knowledge (i) Enhancing the image of the EC
EFFECT CHANGE in and awareness on nanotechnol- as impartial, transparent and
Identify the the whole of ogy and EC role and actions trustworthy communicator on
major impacts society nanotechnology
■■Increase society’s confidence
of commu- and trust in the EC (ii) Increase the consensus among
nication stakeholders, civil society
(II) BEHAVIOUR ■■Promote dialogue and engage- and policymakers on EU
CHANGE ment with stakeholders decision-making on responsible
nanotechnology
TO WHOM Identify strategic, Attain homogeneous, appropri- Targeted audiences act as

appropriate and ate and strategic key audiences both multipliers and influenc-
Address target homogeneous seg- ers to the whole of society
audiences ments of society to
communicate with
HOW Select and use: Set up appropriate: Implement accordingly:

Specify what ■■media ■■targeted surveys (e.g. Web) ■■most appropriate tools/activities
vehicle and techniques for communication
channel are ■■specific workshops
to be used ■■professional ■■tailor-made actions to engage
■■open Web consultations
communicator stakeholders
tactics ■■targeted calls for proposals
■■marketing tools ■■events
■■information ■■publications
gatekeepers, ■■creative-based tools
influencers,
multipliers, ■■light-hearted techniques
opinion-makers
74
The ‘Ws’ OUTPUT OUTTAKES OUTCOMES
WHAT ■■Transparency Identify key messages ■■Nanotechnology is a new phase

for communication of technology
Express the ■■Accountability
real messages Identify key issues for dia- ■■It deals with markets but im-
■■Trust and logue and engagement pacts on safety, privacy, ethics
confidence
■■It must and can be controlled
■■Awareness/
feedback/ conscientiously and the EC is
dialogue fully equipped to do this
■■Society can and should engage
in supporting the policymaking
process
WHERE & Identify strategic Sets attractive techniques ■■Plan details on appropriate fre-
WHEN venues to attain to promote strategic ven- quency and venues of events
audiences ues for key audiences
Allocate
actions
into space
and time
HOW WELL OUTPUT OUTTAKE assessment OUTCOME assessment

assessment
Set up and COMMUNICATION I. Establish what audiences do
implement Outreach cover- with the message, i.e. change
methodology age by commu- 1. Information needs assessment of attitudes and behaviours
nication product, (questions after communication
by audience, so a response can be drawn up) 1. Public opinion polling and sur-
by message veys (before and after surveys of
2. Analysis of news clippings (to attitudes and behaviours)
single out stakeholders’ con-
cerns, developing their 2. Focus groups (to get qualitative
feedback)
3. specific knowledge)
3. Behaviour observation (to
4. Public opinion sampling (to as- determine whether behaviour
sess historical series of opinions changed)
on perception of key problems,
issues and events) 4. Cost-benefit analysis (to
examine stakeholders’ relative
5. Qualitative methods such as benefits from communicating)
questionnaires, discussion meet-
ings, focus groups 5. Experimental (to isolate the ef-
fects of the communication on
ENGAGEMENT
stakeholder behaviour by setting
1. Smog readability grading up experimental groups)
formula (to evaluate the level of II. Draw up recommenda-
issue comprehension) tions for future communica-
2. Message pre-test question- tion and engagement
naires (to get feedback on pilot
materials)
3. Theatre testing (to get feedback
on visually presented pre-test
materials)
4. Focus groups (to get a ‘feel’
for the attitudes and beliefs of
stakeholders)
75
3.3 A close-up look at the

big questions of nano-
communication
3.3.1. Step 1: Science communication
as part of the research
process (The Goal)
Successful science communication depends on being planned as part of the research
process itself. This point is particularly important for communication on nanotechnology,
as uncertainty, risk, social perceptions, concerns and expectations play a crucial role for
building social acceptance or rejection of nanotechnology.
The first step in organising any communication activity must be defining the reason and
the ultimate effect of the communication action, the nature of the audiences, how to at-
tract them, the structure of the communication actions and how to evaluate them.
Ask the questions:
‘Why are we doing this? What do we want to achieve?

What does success look like?’
The answer has already been given: it is about achieving a certain degree of consensus
to support to EU decision-making on nanotechnologies, enhancing the image of EC as an
impartial, transparent and trustworthy communicator on nanotechnology.
3.3.2. Step 2: In charge of both

nano research funding and
communication (The Actor)

4
COM(2004) 338 The mandate given to the European Commission, thus shared also by DG RTD Unit G.4,
eu/nanotechnology/ Nano and Converging Sciences and Technologies by the EC communication ‘Towards
actionplan.htm). a European Strategy for Nanotechnology’ (4) and by the 2005 ‘Nanosciences and nano-

5
COM(2005) 243 technology: an Action Plan for Europe 2005-2009’ (5) clearly outlines this double role for
eu/nanotechnology/ the Unit. The fact that communication about nanotechnology should come from the very
actionplan.htm). core of research is a source of added strength for the EC.
76
3.3.3. Step 3: Be ‘SMARTA’ and attitudes
will change (The Impact)
3.3.3.1 Choosing the method
Expressing objectives in terms of performance makes it easier to determine whether we
have achieved them, so we need to use performance indicators. They can be a quantita-
tive (numbers, monitoring, surveys), or qualitative (description, informal feedback, dis-
cussion) assessment of success of communication. Communication objectives and their
performance indicators are pinpointed by using the SMARTA formula: Specific, Measur-
able, Achievable, Results-orientated, Timely, Action-implicit.
3.3.3.2 Choosing the objectives

The objectives are chosen to attain the goal of achieving a certain degree of consen-
sus as support to EU decision-making on nanotechnologies, enhancing the image of
EC as an impartial, transparent and trustworthy communicator on nanotechnology.
As a consequence, it is pivotal to enhance confidence and trust, i.e. the image
of the actor who communicates. Image is to organisation what popularity is to an
election, when a general attitude change is likely to trigger a behaviour change.
That is why most theoretical models of attitude change are skewed more towards
the importance of the mnemonic side rather than being keen on objective scientific
answers. The first model is called the 4P’s, which was proposed by the American
psychologist Henry Hocke: Picturing a situation, Promising a benefit, Proving the
benefit, Pushing to action.
A second model complements this previous pattern, i.e. the AIDA model:
Attention: to draw attention

Interest: to arouse interest
Desire: to provoke desire => an attitude change
Action: to trigger action => a behaviour change
In this light, objectives related with attitude changes are examined: (i) those aiming at rais-
ing knowledge and awareness on nanotechnology and the associated EC role; (ii) those
focusing on image formation. Then, objectives related with behaviour changes are analy-
sed: (i) engagement and dialogue; (ii) consensus building as support for policymaking.
Goals, objectives and expected effects can be organised according to their importance in
this showcase (Figure 8). This will allow the identification of the necessary Calls to Action
(Sections 3.3.3.3 through 5).
77
Figure 8. Goal, objectives and effects of EC communication

on nanotechnology
Main GOAL
Increasing consensus-based support to EU policymaking on responsible

nanotechnology: positioning the EC as value promoter within society, building on
EC credibility to establish it as a trustworthy communicator on nanotechnology
OBJECTIVE (I): ATTITUDE CHANGE
EFFECT (1) (i) increasing knowledge and awareness on

nanotechnology within society
EFFECT (2) (ii) enhancing confidence and trust in the EC, acceptance
of the EC’s image as trustworthy, impartial and transparent
actor and communicator on nanotechnology
OBJECTIVE (II): BEHAVIOUR CHANGE
EFFECT (1) (i) promoting dialogue and engagement with

stakeholders and society at large
EFFECT (2) (ii) promoting both consensus building and support to EC

policies on safe, responsible and integrated nanotechnology
3.3.3.3 Attitude change
3.3.3.3.1 Knowledge and awareness objectives
Before gaining a good image (what the constituencies think of the organisation), good
awareness is essential (the constituencies’ consciousness that the organisation does exist).
Since nobody likes what he or she does not know, the issue is that the European Commis-
sion should make itself known as a hands-on communicator about nanotechnology.
Four types of awareness are suggested (from the weakest to the strongest).
1. Aided recall: the recipient knows the identity of the organisation quoted to him or her.
2. Unaided recall: the recipient spontaneously quotes the organisation name

and identity.
3. ‘Top of mind’ recall: the organisation is quoted at the top of the list of the recipients’
priorities.
78
4. Qualified recall: the recipient is able to quote a series of specific activities tied with
the organisation.
3.3.3.3.2 Confidence and trust: the image objectives
In order to produce the desired effects on the EC’s image as a trustworthy communicator
on nanotechnology, we need to get the best out of public awareness of the EC’s institu-
tional identity, reputation and relationships.
As is the case with awareness, an image needs to be refined continuously to stay close to
an organisation’s real identity. Four kinds of image can be envisaged:
1. the real image, as close as possible to the organisation’s identity;
2. the perceived image, as it is conveyed by public opinion;
3. the desired image, ideal, best-wished for, according to the pre-defined goals;
4. the possible image, limited by environment constraints.
The EC’s reputation is made of the EC public’s beliefs and judgmental opinions. The qual-
ity of its administration, financial strength, innovative skills, services, and civic actions are
all components of the organisation’s reputation, as well as its ability to listen and inform
citizens and its participation in the cultural, social and environmental life. But this real
identity needs to be fully understood and appreciated, so there should be no image gap
giving way to misperceptions (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Specificities of the EC as communicator on nanotechnology
Institutional
Institutional Identity Institutional Reputation Relationships
What is the actor: EC What to bring to The bonds to form: with

DG RTD is a funding key audiences: other stakeholders
body, funding RTD transparent/trustworthy
on nanotechnology communication
& dialogue
What the actor wants to What to bring to the The stand to take:
be: become a credible EC: increase visibility impartial, transparent
communicator and credibility and trustworthy
communicator on
nanotechnology
79
3.3.3.4 Behaviour change
3.3.3.4.1 The engagement and dialogue objective
If science and society were really a marriage of two actors with different priorities but
with a common goal of mutual support, this would allow the achievement of mutual
benefits and prevent technocracy or populism. In fact, society’s quality of life is heav-
ily affected – positively or negatively – by scientific achievements, while science and
technological systems need societal support (i) to get funded, (ii) to create marketable
products, (iii) to receive moral legitimacy and gratification (6). As in any happy marriage,
science and society have to communicate mutually and fruitfully to achieve a common
agreement, feedback and take responsible decisions, producing a dialogue mechanism.
It is quite clear that social acceptance could come solely from this dialogue and engage-
ment process, which is based on the development of appropriate communication. But
what does this concept really mean?
Again, just like in any marriage, mutual trust, transparency and consensus are the founda-
tions of appropriate communication and dialogue. This construction is difficult to build
and easy to be shaken at the first tremor, but there is no other way: only appropriate com-
munication can bring about and nourish mutual trust.
It works like this: first comes the information system that addresses what society needs to
know to participate in the debate and the decision-making process on nanotechnology
systems. Dialogue ensues: this is a communication system between several emitters and
receivers of information, whose interaction is a variable, complex feedback pattern.
The bottom-up approach represents societal needs and concerns. The top-down ap-
proach details what nanotechnology systems can offer and which are their main con-
straints. The underlying idea of appropriate communication is to set up a new social
governance model for nanotechnology systems based on dialogue, rooted in the con-
cepts of trust, transparency and consent, sparking new relationships between all the so-
cietal forces involved in the nanotechnology debate. Prior understanding is required for
being understood, so the point is no longer to make society understand nanotechnology
mechanisms but to identify which information it needs in the first place.
3.3.3.4.2 The consensus building objective
Efficient participatory mechanisms are required if society is to get more deeply involved
into consensus-building dynamics with a major impact on governance. A better manage-

6
Tomellini, R. (2009), ment of the negotiation about risk is crucial here. Society should be made able to feed its
quoted source, and
Bonazzi, M. (2009A), fears, expectations and concerns back to the EC appropriately. It is expected that certain
quoted paper sensitive issues will come to the fore again and again, especially those involving risk and
80
uncertainty. These should be dealt with by sound science, according to the precaution-
ary and responsibility principles. There can be, of course, different levels of scientific
evidence, risk or uncertainty to be managed.
Appropriate systems balancing the principles of representativeness (e.g. subsidiarity) with

others based of direct democratic approaches (e.g. multi-actors) also need to be set up.
Dedicated measures should be aimed to implement this task among EC-funded commu-
nication activities.
3.3.3.5 Conclusions: Calls to Action

In the old world of the public understanding of science, there was often a monologue
top-down approach where non-expert opinion had no role to play. However, with the in-
creasing recognition that dialogue and multiple inputs are crucial factors in underpinning
sound decision-making in science, it has become accepted that two-way communication
is a more robust way to address all of these objectives. In fact, one of the most enlighten-
ing phrases is:
‘… science is too important to be left to scientists. Their

knowledge and their assessment of risks is only one dimen-
sion of the challenge for society. When science raises pro-
found ethical and social issues, the whole of society needs
to take part in the debate.’ (Science and Innovation White
Paper ‘Excellence and Opportunity’, 2000)
We suggest:
1. the promotion of awareness on nanotechnology as ‘part of the fabric of society’;
2. the promotion of confidence and trust by enhancing the EC’s image as a reliable ac-
tor and communicator on nanotechnology;
3. the promotion of dialogue and engagement;
4. the promotion of public social consensus to support decision-making in EC nano-

technology policies.
If appropriate communication and engagement are the two phases of the overall com-
munication process, respectively associated with a change of attitude and behaviour in
audiences, two sets of calls to action can be identified (Figure 10).
81
Call to Action I: Appropriate communication
It targets the objective ATTITUDE CHANGE, clustering improved knowledge and aware-
ness on nanotechnology and EC, with a gain in EC image and credibility.
i) To whom should we communicate? This section explores ways of knowing key au-
diences in order to determine whether or not there are special needs to be filled in
certain groups, and if so which groups they concern.
ii) What should we communicate about? This section is concerned with identify-
ing crucial messages that need to be included in communication activities about
nanotechnology.
iii) How should we communicate? This section deals with developing appropriate tools
to address issues and audiences effectively.
Effect 1
Knowledge and awareness
■■ To give them the data needed to understand relevant nanotechnology-related issues,

problems or management better.
■■ To inform them of what nanotechnology and EC has done, is doing and plans to do,
and what it cannot do, and why.
■■ To answer questions that have arisen and respond to their concerns.
Effect 2
Confidence and trust
■■ Toraise image for building and maintaining the credibility of the EC on nanotechnol-
ogy in the minds of stakeholders.
■■ To coordinate actions with EC staff and with collaborators so communication is con-

sistent and effective.
■■ To maintain efficiency by avoiding unnecessary conflicts with stakeholders.
■■ To advance proactive approaches.
82
Call to Action II: Dialogue and engagement
It targets the objective BEHAVIOUR CHANGE, feedback, engagement and dialogue, as

well as consensus-building process as support to EU policies.
i) Whom should we engage? This section proposes groups that are particularly impor-
tant when it comes to engagement.
ii) What are the relevant topic for engagement? This part examines different subjects
and situations in order to single out which are most important or even urgent in
engaging audiences.
iii) How should we engage audiences? This section is centred on identifying appropriate
participatory mechanisms to initiate, develop and maintain dialogue.
Effect 1
Dialogue & Engagement
■■ To involve stakeholders as early as possible.
■■ To find out the perceptions, concerns and communication needs of stakeholders.
■■ To provide opportunities for their input, including input into key decisions.
■■ To keep them routinely informed throughout the process.
■■ To build a relationship that incorporates feelings (such as trust) as well as data.
■■ To develop a common vision and agree on it.
Effect 2
Consensus-building
■■ To increase practical support to EC activities on nanotechnology.
■■ To change planning/management practices.
■■ To increase the use of new practices.
■■ To change EC policies.
■■ To increase social and cultural debate on acceptance or rejection of nano-related

products and lifestyles.
83
Figure 10. Goal, objectives, actions and effects of EC communication

on nanotechnology
Main GOAL
Achieve a certain degree of consensus in EU decision-making on responsible nanotechnology within society

(i.e. EC is a shared value-promoter) by building on the EC’s credibility as a nanotechnology communicator
Call to Action Objective Effect 1 Effect 2
APPROPRIATE ATTITUDE CHANGE ■■Improve knowledge and ■■Improve confidence and

awareness and EC role trust in EC as com-
COMMUNICATION
and actions municator in this field:
enhance EC image in
civil society
DIALOGUE BEHAVIOUR CHANGE ■■Promote dialogue and ■■Promote consensus

engagement with stake- building as support to EC
& ENGAGEMENT
holders and civil society policies
3.3.4. Step 4: Getting to know our many

publics better (The Audience)
Dialogue needs active and reactive audiences, also called ‘stakeholders’: these have a
vested interest in the performance of nanotechnology and also wield the greatest influ-
ence over the long-term role and nature of their organisation. They include staff, advisory
committees, government and the public, industry, government departments, special in-
terest groups, universities, science centres and science museums, science councils and
other research bodies. Stakeholders are people who might want to actively hear and tell
things. They tend to resent decisions that are made without their input, as this will virtually
guarantee their opposition.
3.3.4.1 Identifying audiences

Identifying audiences is largely a process of thinking through as specifically as possible
who should be involved in a dialogue. So the question is who must participate in order
to achieve the objective?
The combination of communication objectives and the audience required to achieve

them is crucial. The increasing sophistication of communication in general means that
many science communicators now actively plan to communicate with very specific audi-
ences at specific times. In fact, the increasing recognition that the public is not just one
homogeneous mass is causing much more careful analysis of intended audiences.
84
Recent studies in science communication have proven that there is not one public, there
are many publics;
Identifying groups of public and segmenting audiences according to their common needs
and interests, knowledge and relationship to nanotechnology is bound to be a key factor
of our communication. Singling out mechanisms to learn more about the public and their
relevant divisions comes first (7); key target audiences and their needs and expectations
can be then achieved in the following way (8):
❍❍ studying the habits of special audiences, e.g. youngsters, tough-to-reach,

not-responsive, media, NGOs;
❍❍ carrying out surveys, studies and activities to get an insider’s viewpoint on

the audiences’ perceptions, concerns, expectations;
❍❍ takinginto account prospective studies on social and cultural impacts of

nanotechnology on different audiences.
3.3.4.2 Basic questions to identify key audiences

The following questions can help identify key groups and individuals: those sensitive to
more than one question are particularly critical to reach.
1. Which audiences have previously been involved in the communication activities?
2. Which audiences may be directly affected by nanotechnology, policy, or action?
3. Which audiences may be angry if they are not consulted about nanotechnology
activities?
4. Which audiences may have useful information, ideas, or opinions for nanotechnology
communication?
5. Which audiences should be involved to ensure a balanced range of opinions?
6. Which audiences need to know what nanotechnology is doing, though they are not
providing input yet?
3.3.4.3 Prioritising key audiences

7
Bonazzi, M.(ed.), 2007
(A), quoted paper.
It is necessary to determine which audiences are most important. Often the audiences
8
Bonazzi, M. and
most difficult to deal with, as they seem hostile or problematic, are those with whom Palumbo, J. (Ed.),
communication is most needed, as these are often the most likely to raise issues if they (2007), quoted paper.
85
are not consulted early. Indeed, communication efforts could be more vulnerable to criti-
cism if it has failed to address those audiences’ concerns.
So it is particularly important to reach those audiences that:
■■ might benefit from the research;
■■ might ‘lose out’ from the research;
■■ have relevant expertise;
■■ are crucial to secure cooperation or funding during the implementation phase.
Prioritising audiences can be achieved by dividing them into three categories:
■■ those we MUST communicate with;
■■ those we SHOULD communicate with;
■■ those we would LIKE to communicate with;
The key questions to answer regarding each of these audiences are:
Perceptions: What do they already know, believe and understand about

nanotechnology?
Concerns: Do they have any concerns about nanotechnology?
Expectations: What information do they wish to know? How do they wish we communi-
cate such information to them? How do they wish to interact with us?
Although this is the most time-consuming phase of planning, it is also the most important
to the purpose of developing and implementing successful communication.
3.3.4.4 A checklist of questions we

should try to get across
A checklist of questions is provided here by which audiences could self-examine their per-
ceptions, concerns and communication needs in more detail, and get their answers back to
us. We should try and forward these questions to audiences through all our actions.
86
Perceptions
■■ What do we already know about nanotechnology?

■■ Do we know about the benefits of nanotechnology?
Concerns
■■ Do we have any comments and suggestions that we want to put on record?

■■ What sort of response to these comments/suggestions would
we like to receive?
■■ Do we have any concerns about nanotechnology activities?
■■ What objections do we have about the way nanotechnology operates?
■■ What else can we tell you that will help you to
be more responsive to our concerns?
Expectations
■■ What type of interaction would we like to have with nanotechnology?

■■ How do we feel about our interaction with nanotechnology so far?
■■ What questions do we want answered?
■■ What kind of information do we want to know?
■■ How do we like to receive information on nanotechnology?
3.3.4.5 Key audiences for communication

and dialogue
This challenge already inspired the European Commission back in 2007 to set up a spe-
cific sequence of workshops integrated with a Web consultation (9) (see Section 2.4.3).
Their main outcomes have been to identify, segment and characterise key audiences (as
well as vehicles and messages) for communication and dialogue on nanotechnology, i.e.
young people, scientists, industry, business, policymakers, NGOs, media. Results are
presented in the following sections. This process has allowed the launch of a dedicated
call for proposals targeting some of these audiences in 2008, enabling the funding of four
projects starting from 2009, and budgeted with about EUR 5 million.
3.3.4.5.1 Specifying key audiences for communication
Target audiences should be as homogeneous as possible to be effectively attained, via 9

appropriate communication activities. Main target audiences are underlined. and Palumbo, J. (eds.),
(2007), quoted papers.
87
3.3.4.5.1.1 Young people

Youngsters can be considered a final target audience, whose multipliers are mainly teach-
ers, and/or parents to a lesser extent. Still, young people themselves can also act as mul-
tipliers or influencers with respect to their peers belonging to their own environment (in
both school and leisure spaces). This is a difficult target, since it is fairly broad: therefore
a segmentation of the group into subgroups was proposed based on age and needs. The
most pragmatic approach is to divide them into groups according to their age and devel-
opmental stage, with different objectives and messages tailored to each one. Some ac-
tions could also be gender-specific, as girls tend to lose interest in science and technology
subjects at a certain point in time. The main goal is to stimulate young people’s curiosity
in order to spark their desire to choose a career in science. Two more general objectives
should be pursued: (i) raising the level of knowledge about nano and fostering the under-
standing of science and the way it works, (ii) promoting awareness of controversial issues
(such as ethical, legal, and social implications of nano) in order to create responsible
citizens. Some effort should also be made to insert nano into school curricula at various
levels, in order to ensure a basic level of knowledge on the subject.
Multipliers are identified as important target groups; so the important divisions within the
public should be linked to their age, activity and role in society rather than to their attitude
towards nanotechnology. Major outcomes are:
■■ the specificity of objectives, means and messages to each target audience;
■■ the needed balance between large-scale events and long-term action, the latter being
often more appropriate when dealing with multipliers’ audiences;
These are the general recommendations for communication projects in this area.
■■ Ask the question: are the key messages communicated effectively to the target audi-
ence identified by the project as a priority? Are the objectives clearly defined and met
10
European Commission in the project’s lifetime?
(2004): Nanotechnology:
public (2004), EC, ■■ Special attention should be paid to differences in the target audience, which can
Brussels; European result in important variations to the way messages are received.
Commission
(2007): Strategy for
communication outreach ■■ Additional specific actions should be targeted at the multipliers with special outreach
in nanotechnology,
EC, Brussels, 2007.
for each group e.g. tools for teachers/parents (e.g. in the case of young people).
11
Piaget, J. (1932): The
moral Judgment of a Following the recommendations mentioned in previous sections, communication of
Child (http://www. nanotechnology should address various young audiences. Among these special attention
archive.org/details/
moraljudgmentoft- should be given to ‘children and younger people’ (10). Various age segments are chosen on
005613mbp). the basis of the cognitive theories of Piaget (11) and Kohlberg (12) on cognitive and moral
12
Crain, W.C. (1985): development. The theory of Piaget on the philosophy of science concerns the growth of
Theories of Develop-
ment. Prentice-Hall. intelligence, by which Piaget means the ‘ability to more accurately represent the world
pp. 118-136. and perform logical operations on concepts grounded in interactions with the world’.
88
This theory concerns the emergence and construction of schemata – which are schemes
of how one perceives the world – in the ‘developmental stages’ when children learn new
ways of mentally representing information.
Piaget identified four stages in cognitive development. We are not concerned with the
first two here (sensory-motor period between years 0-2 and preoperational period be-
tween years 2-7, when logic sets in but there is still a tendency to focus on just one aspect
of an object). We want to focus on the concrete operational period that spans between
years 7-11, when children gain a better understanding of mental operations and begin to
think logically about concrete events, yet still have difficulty in understanding abstract or
hypothetical concepts.
The formal operational period would cover year 11 and over, and would be defined by the
acquisition of the ability to think abstractly, reason logically and draw conclusions from
the information they have gathered.
The theory of Piaget on moral judgment is framed in two stages:
■■ children younger than 10 or 11 years regard rules as fixed, absolute and that cannot
be changed;
■■ children older than 10 or 11 are more relativistic and they understand that rules are
not absolute but are tools that people use to live cooperatively.
On the other hand, Kohlberg proposed a theory which goes beyond the view of Piaget. It
has three levels, which are therefore divided into six stages.
Level 1: 4 to 10 years old (stage 1 and stage 2): at stage 1, children think of what is right is
what authority says is right: doing the right thing is being obedient to authority and avoid-
ing punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority:
they see that there are different sides to all issues.
Level 2: 10 to 13 years old (stage 3 and stage 4): here young people think as members of
conventional society with its values, norms and expectations. At stage 3 they emphasise
being helpful towards people that are near to them. At stage 4 they show more preoc-
cupation about obeying laws to maintain the society as a whole.
Level 3: 13 and over (stage 5 and stage 6): here young people are more concerned with
the principles and values that can make a good society. At stage 5 they emphasise the
basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone the right to say his/her opin-
ion, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be obtained as the
best thing to do.
In this light, the communication activity of nanotechnology to young audiences should

focus on ages that correspond to stages 3 to 6 of the theory of Kohlberg, and will provide
89
them with dilemmas adequate to their developmental level. For example, a role playing
exercise will give young audiences an opportunity to learn how points of view are dif-
ferent and how to coordinate them in a cooperative way. As the participants show their
differences, they will develop concepts of what is fair and just. Two variations of the role
play should be developed: one for 11 to 13 year olds, who are in stages 3 and 4, and one
for 14 to 18 year olds, corresponding to stages 5 and 6 of the theory of Kohlberg.
Other authors have addressed the importance of gender in moral development. For exam-
ple, Gilligan observed that for males, the moral thinking is about rules, rights, and abstract
principles and on an ideal of formal justice, in which claims are evaluated in an impartial
way. The morality of women is more about the context; it depends on real, current rela-
tionships rather than abstract solutions to hypothetical dilemmas. As a consequence, the
activities to be set up in communication projects will take into account these findings and
try to address both ways of thinking of females and males on moral reasoning.
3.3.4.5.1.1.1 The youngest segment to address:

children aged 5 to 13
Children of that age are typically not yet interested in nano, but are generally interested
in knowing more about the world; in order to reach them more easily, multiplier groups
(such as teachers and parents) can be targeted through special training programmes and
activities. The objective of communication activities for this age should be to stimulate
the children’s curiosity about science and nano and influence teachers and parents so that
they will continue activities at home or expose the child to further information. The mes-
sage for this group should be simple, such as ‘Nano is cool/fun/interesting’. The following
list collects some suggestions about possible measures to be taken and channels to be
used in reaching out to young children and to gather feedback.
3.3.4.5.1.1.2 The middle segment: teenagers aged 14 to 18

This group is getting ready for university. Therefore, it requires information about the pos-
sibilities nano offers in the academic and professional world, as well as basic information
on nanotechnology and why teenagers should be interested in it. Objectives of communi-
cation activities should also be to stimulate interest in scientific subjects and approaches
as well as to foster a critical attitude and stimulate dialogue to make them into responsible
citizens. The general messages could be summarised as follows: ‘Nano is trendy-fun-
intellectually stimulating’, ‘Nano is an exciting and attractive field for further education
and a future job opportunity’, as well as ‘You can make a difference’. Multipliers to be
targeted to reach this group are both teachers and celebrities (such as singers, pop-stars,
football players and famous scientists).
Studies show that in youngsters of this age group, gender differences start appearing in
their attitude towards science and technology. Therefore, measures should be taken to
minimise any budding imbalance. For this purpose and to maximise impact, feedback
should be collected during activities.
90
3.3.4.5.1.1.3 The upper segment: young people aged 19 to 22
Youngsters in this age group are getting ready to choose careers and seek reliable infor-
mation about their options. Multipliers can include celebrities such as famous scientists;
politicians; journalists/media; industry (aiming at attracting young people as future pro-
fessionals); teachers, scientists, professors; NGOs targeting youngsters sensitive to green
issues. Gender differences continue to be an issue and require special attention. The
messages that should be communicated are e.g. ‘Nano is already part of our life’; ‘It can
represent an important part of the future’; ‘Nano is interesting and it represents a chal-
lenging professional opportunity’ and ‘You can make a difference’ (to encourage active
participation and engagement with science). These actions are about stimulating interest
in science careers and increasing knowledge of opportunities in science, creating respon-
sible citizens by enhancing critical thinking.
3.3.4.5.1.2 Scientists and research communities

Scientists can have two different roles in science communication. They can be taken as a
target audience in its own right since science has a high degree of specialisation, mean-
ing that scientists are not experts in all fields of scientific knowledge. Therefore, training
activities can be envisaged to give access to useful information in realms where they are
not specialists. For example, communication training may be beneficial for both natural
and social scientists, as well as training on the awareness and basic knowledge of societal
consequences of research and connected products.
3.3.4.5.1.3 Media
Journalists are a diverse group of professionals with different needs and specifications, al-
though they should perform as independently as possible. The media they work with have
their own requirements, ranging from newspapers to television to the Internet. As a cat-
egory, journalists tend to be quite busy and hard to reach. So, as with all communication
activities dedicated to a specific target audience, actions directed towards them must be
based on their true needs in order to be considered useful and appropriate. The time pres-
sures and deadlines that journalists typically work under must be recognised and taken
into account. A need that is routinely expressed by journalists is images. Possible ways of
providing appropriate and tailor-made images to serve various media needs could be put
into place, for example a database. Furthermore, reliable information on nano is required
in an appropriate format; both from the point of view of basic/scientific knowledge and
on the context and social implications it has or could have in the future. Communication
with journalists could possibly start off from the fact that nanotechnology is already out
there in the marketplace, therefore it may have potential positive and negative implica-
tions from a societal, ethical and legal point of view (for example through its applications
in water purification, medicines, food, cosmetics). When talking to journalists, it should
be emphasised that the public needs to be more informed about nanotechnology in order
to increase their awareness of both potential opportunities and risks.
91
Credibility of the information provided and building media relationships based on trust
are key values to reach journalists as multipliers, while the messages can be (i) Nano is
already happening, (ii) It has implications on a societal level, (iii) Audiences need to know
more and have their say.
Press officers from public research institutions seem well placed to organise and manage
the information exchange between journalists and different groups of scientists, whereas
care should be taken in dealing with the press offices of private companies, which could
have special interests.
3.3.4.5.1.4 NGOs
In communication activities directed to NGOs, the main objective is to involve them
directly in building links and information. NGOs can help build a mechanism to share
information constantly, rather than just for crisis management. Particular attention should
be driven towards:
■■ Big NGOs already engaged in both communication and debate on nanotechnology

(e.g. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth);
■■ Small NGOs whose action and sensitiveness is focused on the local scale;
■■ Consumer associations.
3.3.4.5.1.5 Business / Industry / Funding Bodies / Insurers

There are two major categories of businesses or industries concerned with nanotechnol-
ogy, and each has its own needs and motivations.
■■ SMEs and start-up companies in nano-related industries and corporations are moti-
vated by the search for a market in nano – they have strong motivation to seek out
information on opportunities and risks associated with the nano-business.
■■ Nano-using and nano-producing industry, including SMEs, on the other hand, are
working with staff that manipulate nano materials and components, producing goods
that have to do with nanotechnology and will be bought by customers on the market,
but they may not be as keen to devote a lot of resources to the communication activi-
ties. There are two different considerations in this case: what do the producers dealing
with nano need to know and what should they be telling consumers about concerns
regarding safety and security of staff working with nanoproducts? And what do the
workers, associations and such need to know? Trade unions and employers’ organisa-
tions are important multipliers when dealing with this kind of target.
92
■■ SMEs and start-ups are more likely to require support in communication activities, as
well as dealing with safety and security issues and regulation – this should not be left
to their own resources and initiative.
■■ The funding and insurance sector and NGOs pressure companies for sustainability,
while the main objective for this group is to make ‘nano’ a business success.
3.3.4.5.1.6 Policymakers
For this target group, the main objective is to focus on policymakers’ needs at all levels
(European, national, local, etc.). Several actions should be carried out to meet the needs
of decision-makers and to build a mechanism to ensure this happens on a continuous ba-
sis. It seems important to build ongoing channels of communication to inform and advise
decision-makers, rather than have large one-off events.
3.3.4.5.2 Preparing key audiences for

dialogue and engagement
Communication should enjoy continuity to build on results and contribute to develop

an EU integrated, safe and responsible nanotechnology. Appropriate communication on
nanotechnology has been the focus of a first set of funding EC actions addressing key
audiences, such as young people, scientists, industry, business, policymakers, NGOs,
media. This is to prepare the initiatives for engaging the complete range of appropriate
audiences (the so-called stakeholders) on dialogue about key societal issues associated
with nanotechnology: researchers, scientists, industry, media, funding bodies, insurers,
NGOs, policymakers, opinion makers, influencers, information gatekeepers, and the gen-
eral public. Specific research is still needed to study their profile, vehicles and messages
to engage them in dialogue, thus future EC calls on this issue will be launched.
3.3.5. Step 5: Bring them in: how to

prepare for dialogue (The Vehicle)
Dialogue is a critical feature for the appropriate communication of science. Within the
most traditional of formats, such as a lecture, it simply needs time and space: although
this would probably be a monologue, questions and comments could help turning it into
a dialogue. Another kind of event could be shaped, where different speakers present a
topic and associated issues from various perspectives, allowing the audience to break
up into small discussion groups and identify comments and questions to be shared with
everybody and commented on by the speakers. Effective formats involve a face to face
exchange, but these need to be balanced against the cost.
93
3.3.5.1 Communication and

dialogue tool checklist
The following tactics are meant to provide some thinking prompts rather than to be com-
prehensive. In many cases, there will need to be more than one tactic for achieving com-
munication objectives. It is useful to re-visit the communication objectives to make sure
the chosen tactics fit in with them.
Written or audio-visual Materials

Leaflets, Letters, Postcards, Newsletters, Periodic updates, Articles or announcements,
Displays, Fact sheets, Curriculum materials, Comics/cartoons, Handouts, Question-and-
answer sheets, Posters, Videos, Slide shows, Audio tapes.
Electronic Communication
e-mail, Bulletin boards, on-line tools (e.g. contests), Faxes, person-to-person and peer-to
peer approaches, Presentations, Informal meetings, Open-door days, Workshops, Advi-
sory committees, Networking, Information telephone lines, Events, Celebrations, Field
days/tours, Breakfast/lunch/dinner functions, Conferences, Training courses, Mass media
approaches, Local/suburban media, Media releases, Letters to the editor, Talk shows,
Call-in shows, Advertisements, Feature articles/contests.
Tactics for eliciting input

Informal meetings, Market analysis, Questionnaires, Advisory groups, Brainstorming, In-
teractive workshops, Consensus groups, Opinion polls and surveys, Evaluations, Small
group meetings, Open space, Interactive field days, Focus groups.
Commercialisation-like tactics
Promotion planning, Selection of and liaison with stakeholders, Intellectual property
management, Contract negotiation, Pricing and costing, Presentations/exhibits in malls,
Hands-on/hearts-on/minds-on approaches.
3.3.5.2 Tools for appropriate communication

There are no real rules for choosing the right tools each time, but it is useful to keep in
mind relevant facts about needs and expectations of each stakeholder or group of public
in order to reach tit effectively. The same set of exercises launched by the European Com-
mission in 2007 (Section 2.4.3) enabled us to identify a number of desirable approaches
94
to communicating nanotechnology effectively (13). Using some of them simultaneously is
likely to increase overall effectiveness:
■■ employ the three-fold hands-on, hearts-on, minds-on approach;
■■ implement a cooperation model between school, science centre and lab;
■■ develop imaginative ways to allow citizens to experience nano;
■■ set up databases for copyright-free access to experiments on nano;
■■ promote openness of research centres to the public as a mission,

through scientists-communicators;
■■ foster communication on applications, then benefits and risks;
■■ consider need to use emotions: how/why do we fall in love with nano: different ratio-
nalities, e.g. theatre, arts, game, role-play;
■■ involve passionate people.
The results coming from the mentioned studies are focused on two different aspects of
science communication about nanotechnology. The first relates to multipliers, meaning 13
and 2007B), Bonazzi,
target publics that have an important role in communicating with a larger public, such as M. and Palumbo, J. (Ed.),
journalists or teachers. As they have the potential to reach so many more individuals, they (2007), quoted papers.
should be the primary groups to reach, without however excluding the need to address 14
Nanotechnology:
the broad public with appropriate actions. Secondly, it was recognised that some groups public (2004): BMRB
are best reached during their ‘professional’ (or school) time, while others would be best international (http://
reached during their leisure time. www.nanotech.org.
uk); ‘Public perceptions
about nanotechnology:
Therefore the importance of multipliers and influencers is emphasised, e.g. scientists, risks, benefits and trust’.
journalists, opinion-leaders, influencers, information gatekeepers, policymakers, and if J, J.Nanoparticle Res.,
possible also teachers. Clearly, if the multipliers and influencers are not ready to play 2004, 6, 395-405;
their role, communication projects aimed at the general public will lack a key resource. Gaskell, G.; Allum, N.;
Stares, S. (2003): Europe-
Additionally, scientists are particularly important for two reasons: (i) Nanotechnology is ans and Biotechnology
an extremely technical and diverse field, whose reliable and updated information can in 2002: Eurobarom-
eter 58.0; Methodology
only come from scientists in the first place; scientists are the first link in the communica- Institute, London School
tion chain (they publish in the professional and the lay press, they give interviews, they of Economics, London
UK ‘Public attitudes
are asked expert opinions, they are invited to debates), and therefore their role is critical. towards nanotechnol-
If they won’t or are not able to communicate, most other communication projects are ogy’ (2002): Bainbridge,
doomed to fail, even if just for lack of information (or correct information). (ii) According W.S., J.Nanoparticle
Res. 2002, 4, 561-570;
to Eurobarometer and other surveys, scientists are the professionals most trusted by the Swiss publifocus on
public when it comes to explaining the impact of technology on our life (14). Accordingly, nanotechnologies,
(2006), project TA-Swiss,
two clusters of Calls to Actions are outlined, addressing target audiences during their TA-SWISS, the Centre for
‘professional’ and ‘leisure’ time. Technology Assessment.
95
3.3.5.2.1 Call to Action on communication

during ‘professional time’
It is crucial to be as specific as possible in targeting each audience.
3.3.5.2.1.1 Youngsters
■■ art festivals, theatre, movies, games
■■ exhibitions and activities in science museums.
3.3.5.2.1.1.1 Children aged 5 to 13
■■ exhibitions in cultural centres, science museums
■■ events in schools
■■ games (including computer games), cartoons
■■ nano fairs, theatre, festivals
■■ the Internet, TV, radio media
■■ developing a friendly guide, mascot or attractive figure to show children the

nano world.
A.2 Youngsters aged 14 to 18
■■ Internet platforms, podcasts/trendy media

■■ organised debates
■■ celebrity testimonials on science issues
■■ bringing famous scientists to schools
■■ festivals
■■ contests for video and creative art productions
■■ theatre productions and art contests
■■ edutainment interactive applications – hands-on activities and open labs
■■ visit to labs/experimenting/stage experiments/dialogue.
A.3 Youngsters aged 19 to 22
■■ open labs, out-of campus events, real lab guided tours contact with scientists
■■ Internet chat platforms
96
■■ professional information-orientation fairs and
case studies, presence of EC stands
■■ informal activities to familiarise students with concepts of nano
■■ conferences/shows
■■ internships
■■ debates.
3.3.5.2.1.2 Scientists
Possible interventions through their research institutions to meet ‘scientists
as communicators’:
■■ presence and activities at festivals and other events;
■■ presentations for senior scientists;
■■ real hands-on communication experiences;
■■ Internet platforms where scientists can communicate directly with the general
public online;
■■ open labs or events where young scientists can meet high school students;
■■ collaborations with communication professionals, e.g. journalists, press officers, sci-

ence centres;
■■ collaborations with artists and designers;
■■ science café programmes, or informal cocktail, dinner events – with the objective of
providing a meeting ground with the public, also for creating feedback and dialogue
with the public;
■■ meetings where natural scientists meet social scientists and professional

communicators;
■■ closed-door meetings with NGOs and other professionals, e.g. industry, to

build trust.
3.3.5.2.1.3 Media
Some mechanisms of appropriate communication with media reached via journalists
include initiatives aimed at building relationships between journalists and those with a
specialist expertise and views, such as ethicists, social scientists, NGOs.
97
Possible relationship building mechanisms could include the following.
■■ Tutorial work, shadowing work.
■■ A neutral ‘resource centre’ providing a focus for proactive briefing, highlights, images,
movies, clips, in order to offer tools for relationship building and generate scenarios as
a trigger for discussion. It could be a science centre or museum, since they are gener-
ally viewed as neutral by the public. Activities could be organised in collaboration
with press officers, since science centres and museums do work with journalists on
a fairly regular basis.
■■ The media becoming a sponsor of an event where they are involved might bias the
credibility of the event itself, but local organisers could make up their own mind
about this point.
■■ Social and informal activities involving journalists and scientists together.
■■ Person-to-person contacts between journalists and scientists is a good practice that

needs to be expanded as a way of providing journalists with reference people in the
domain of nano, to call up for information or interviews in the event of nano news.
3.3.5.2.1.4 NGOs
■■ Creation of platforms, forums and debates linking scientists to NGOs, built with
their direct involvement, in particular around issues of research into risk and
legislation/regulation.
■■ Green quality markers for laboratories that reach pre-defined standards of safety in
handling nano-products. These labels should be developed by appropriate entities
and communicated to proper NGOs, whose own communication target is to watch
over the credibility of this information.
3.3.5.2.1.5 Business/Industry/Funding bodies/Insurers

The insurance sector and NGOs pressure companies for sustainability, while industry’s
main objective is to make ‘nano’ a business success. Several actions should be taken to
provide reliable information answering the needs of business, for instance:
■■ ratio of benefits/risks and facts/fiction
■■ long-term perspective
■■ regulation
■■ financial expectation.
98
Industry has to know the needs of customers in order to develop products that are relevant
to customers’ needs and values, which in the case of nanotechnology are as follows.
■■ Know the product risks and what risks are studied, known or unknown; consumers
should find this information easy to understand. There could be an Internet and prod-
uct labelling system with a special logo indicating the presence of nanotechnology
treated products, also word-of-mouth marketing and product demonstration.
■■ Understand the impacts (both positive and potentially negative) of nanotechnology

in daily life.
3.3.5.2.1.6 Policymakers
The following topics have been identified as potentially relevant for policymakers:
■■ potential risks and benefits;
■■ broad perspectives including economics;
■■ what regulation is being made at EU level for national policymakers;
■■ international comparisons;
■■ what people/citizens think.
Implementation mechanisms:
■■ platforms of information and exchanges on an ongoing basis, including information

about initiatives taken by other policymakers in EU countries;
■■ build channels of communication as well as tools;
■■ communication exchanges between scientists and policymakers;
■■ taking into account language issues and cultural differences especially when deal-
ing with local policymakers, creating channels on various levels so that information
doesn’t come across as a directive from Brussels;
■■ briefing on future scenarios before a crisis comes;
■■ direct actions for policymakers;
■■ theatre/playsin City councils (professional settings of the targeted audience)

on nanoscience.
99
3.3.5.2.2 Call to Action on communication

during ‘leisure time’
Appropriate actions, best focused on leisure time, should be aimed at stimulating the
general public’s curiosity and awareness, and at collecting feedback from people. Un-
usual settings and cross-cultural approaches are favoured in order to include groups that
do not usually take part in activities concerning science, without discounting the ‘usual’
approaches that are known to work. In particular, art is an instrument well suited to the
task of catching people’s attention and stimulating their curiosity. Public events on nano-
technology should be planned by groups including experts from different fields such as
scientists or artists, for example.
■■ Reach people who are usually not involved and stimulate their curiosity, either by
providing stimuli through perception, dance and art. It’s important to adopt a user-
oriented approach, answering the question ‘Why should I be interested?’
■■ Provide basic information about nanotechnology, what it is and what implications it

has, keeping it simple and realistic without oversimplifying. Stress the fact that nano-
technology is not magic, it’s a science that has methodologies and interdisciplinary
work behind it, and that it is not static knowledge acquired once and for all but an
evolving technology where new information is gained every day and new perspec-
tives may emerge.
■■ Nano is a cross-section technology covering a large range of sciences and branches/

markets. So the hopes and fears about nanotechnology may vary depending on the
branch, and this must be taken into account when communicating different aspects
of the research and technology, e.g. nanotechnology in food is more likely viewed as
a risk/danger than nanotechnology in automotive industry
■■ Ensure honest communication on known and unknown risks of nanotechnology

and its products, with an open approach to the ethical implications. What benefits
are to be expected? Facts and figures should be presented, e.g. by including a time-
line for applications. This kind of information could be drawn from the observatory
on nanotechnologies. Communication projects must include social implications
of nanotechnology, along with questions such as potential environmental, health,
food problems. It is necessary to open a debate between different disciplines, peo-
ple and stakeholders.
The following cross-over themes should be considered in science communication activi-

ties as shown below.
■■ Interdisciplinarity is important to communicate nano – scientists can interact with

communication professionals, artists and designers to maximise impact, ensure qual-
ity of information and fine-tune approaches to different needs.
100
■■ Feedback from the public is essential and needs to be collected through appropriate
means in every activity.
■■ Debate should be stimulated and encouraged in the public – an exchange of views is

important and enriching both for the public and for the other groups involved, such
as scientists or policymakers.
■■ Interactivitywith the public is crucial to ensure engagement. Appropriate measures

must be implemented to ensure that the public is involved in activities.
As a consequence, the following activities should be considered.
3.3.5.2.2.1 Games about nanotechnology

Games are a recognised way of providing informal learning environments for a wide
variety of people, since they can be made with tailored messages and in ways suitable to
reach different audiences. The objective is to create fun and educational games within a
realistic scope/budget:
■■ video games
■■ table games
■■ strategy games
■■ role play games
■■ educational and hands-on games
■■ group or multi-player games
■■ card games.
Construction games, such as nano building blocks like molecular models especially de-
signed for molecular machines or tactile games, like building with boxers’ gloves to give
an idea of limited movement, instrumentation for small object handling and such.
3.3.5.2.2.2 Virtual Internet environment activities

This may include a virtual guided tour of a nano-environment to give the idea of scale
and nano-dimensions. A guide or mascot (such as a made-up, appealing nano-character)
could be used to show the visitor around the virtual environment. A funny character such
as ‘Super-Nano’ and edutainment tools should be made available. This kind of media can
also be designed to work both for leisure and for professional/school time. Learning is also
fun and schools should use state-of-the-art tools/media for complementing the lessons.
101
‘Second life’ and other similar virtual environments where the nanoworld can come alive
could be used:
■■ interactive
experiment with user generated output involving a virtual or real nano-lab
where the user can choose variables and perform experiments, verifying outputs and
experiencing scenarios;
■■ Internet platform or portal connecting different interest groups carrying different com-
petences – for example scientists with artists, journalist or youngsters.
3.3.5.2.2.3 Contemporary art Nano-Festival

A few day-long festivals joining various forms of contemporary art could be a possible ac-
tivity, where nanotechnology is interpreted using visual expression and other disciplines.
This event can and should be adapted to target different audiences. The event should
include policymakers to maximise impact and media coverage.
Events should be planned by groups with mixed competences, such as scientists, artists
and designers together. Interactivity with the public is a particularly important aspect of
this kind of event and input from the public should also be welcome. In order to reach
out to people who usually go to art exhibitions or have some affinity to contemporary
dance or art performance, the audience on a nano festival could be addressed in various
ways including indirect/interpreted (artistic expression) and direct communication (e.g.
explanatory, edutainment).
■■ Art exhibition with installations that introduce the public to the creative processes
by offering the possibility of interacting with the artworks, which may be designed
to change the way users behave. Introduction of nanophysics laws in the design of
the artwork itself, for example self-assembling application in art performance, instal-
lation, theatre, etc.
■■ Conference or talk by a scientist connected to an artist interpreting the words visually

or a performance where dancers translate what the scientist says into movement. Art-
ists should collaborate with scientists in writing the script.
■■ Dance performance using movement or choreography to give an idea of the nano-

dynamics (Feynman’s famous quotations, interpreted by dancers could represent the
void between atoms. A dancer with limited movement compared to a puppet or a
robot which can move any way it likes, either through the physical presence of both
or using electronic imagery gives the ideas of quantum levels of energy).
■■ Performance inspired to the laws of quantum physics, for example with a self-as-
sembling structure, to give the public an intuitive perception of the physical laws
at nanoscale.
102
■■ Workshops involving school groups or selected groups of specific publics.
■■ Short movies about nano – a competition could be launched to ensure the audience’s
participation.
■■ Connections to the outside world, through the Internet, webcams, media connections.
■■ Writing and performance of nano-songs, acoustic voyage into the nano-world, sym-
phony about the nano-scale interactions, music written and performed using ideas
from physical behaviours at the nanoscale.
■■ Also take advantage of other mainstream nano-events. For example, if Hollywood

releases a movie involving nano, to have a public debate or discussion after show-
ing the movie. If there is a major news item on nano, have a science café discussion
around the event.
3.3.5.2.2.4 Travelling event

Means of transport such as a train, a caravan or a truck disguised as a spaceship could
be designed to reach any destination, including developing countries. Different activities
can be packed into them: they should be interactive, involve artistic media and interactive
artistic applications, an exhibition, a moving laboratory with experiments and demonstra-
tions. Schools, villages and public spaces are some of the possible locations for such an
initiative, along with stations and airports.
3.3.5.3 Tools for dialogue and engagement

Dialogue with key stakeholders on nanotechnology should be centred around all these
needs (15). But more research is required to expand on them to develop a more complete
picture by building on the results of the actions to be developed in appropriate commu-
nication (Section 3.3.5.3.2).
The proposed actions are those more urgently needed, and should aim at engaging stake-
holders (e.g. researchers, scientists, industry, funding bodies, insurers, NGOs, opinion-
makers, influencers, information gatekeepers, nano-consumers, lay public) on debate
and dialogue on key societal issues associated with nanotechnology, by devising and
implementing the most appropriate tools to attain consensus on both issues and their
urgency. Nanotechnology and related societal issues should always be addressed in a
balanced way, in order to: (i) open a sound, science-based dialogue by way of appro-
priate media-based public engagement tools, e.g. television, radio, Web, blogging, citi-
zen conferences, dedicated public events; (ii) provide the EC services with insights and
recommendations to improve governance by building on awareness and responsible
15
Bonazzi, M. and
dialogue on nanotechnology; (iii) providing inputs to be included into any forthcoming Palumbo, J. (Ed.),
EC Action Plans on nanotechnology. (2007), quoted paper.
103
To open a sound dialogue, stakeholders could start picking any nanotechnology social
issue or application which is the closest to them. It is expected that stakeholders e.g.
industry, funding bodies, insurers, NGOs, opinion-makers, influencers, information gate-
keepers, nano-consumers and general public will endorse such a dialogue, in a way that
can be measured and used to build consensus to support the EC’s good governance and
contribute to the EC future Action Plans on nanotechnology.
3.3.5.3.1 Designing the tools for dialogue

and engagement with stakeholders
There are a number of methods that have been specifically developed, within market
and social research, to support consultation and dialogue. A number of techniques are
described in detail. A draft classification can be built according to whether or not a nano-
technology topic is controversial:
1. issues that are currently causing public controversy;
2. issues with a clear potential to cause public controversy;
3. issues where the impact on society is not yet established;
4. issues that are interesting but not controversial.
■■ The first category, at the top of the scale, recognises the ‘hot topic’, possibly identified
by the fact that it is being covered in news in both printed and audiovisual media. Ad-
dressing these topics is one way of providing a way for people to express themselves
and their hopes and concerns.
■■ The second broad category includes issues where scientists may well know that there
is the potential for significant controversy. For example, a nanoparticle technology
may be considered to be extremely useful but emerging research might suggest un-
foreseen problems. It is important to have dialogue activities on these issues, as they
will help to build mutual understanding that might ultimately maintain control on any
controversy that might erupt. It will be important to identify appropriate policy forums
where information gathered in these sorts of activities can be fed into.
■■ The third category is one where horizon scanning and scenario development will be
critical in opening any dialogue. It could turn out to be hard to engage public audi-
ences on issues like this that might not seem real.
■■ The fourth category may seem unsuitable for a dialogue at a first glance, but the lack
of any present controversy does not mean that people have nothing to say.
104
3.3.5.3.2 Call to Action on dialogue and engagement
More inputs are needed to complete the picture of engagement, to be developed along
this pattern.
i) A first initiative (e.g. participatory workshop) will gather selected experts from the me-
dia, engage the public engagement, and represent communication to shape operative
recommendations for future European funding on innovative approaches to engage
European society into a dialogue on nanotechnology. Experts in the field of science
communication share success, best practices and challenge stories, with a view to giv-
ing different audiences a ‘voice’ in the policymaking process. Out of such a dedicated
workshop on public engagement on nanotechnology, a set of recommended activities
for Europe should be outlined, which can be commented on in the dedicated forum
on the EC’s website.
ii) Starting from these results, a second initiative will identify key actions to be devel-
oped through future European funding schemes on stakeholders’ public engagement
on nanotechnology, setting up the scene for dialogue on nanotechnology within Eu-
ropean society. Experts in the field of industry, media, NGOs and investors, should
share success and best practices as well as challenge stories to shape the consensus-
making process in societal dialogue. The main proposed activities aim at:
■■ surveying targeted stakeholders to identify their position, values, concerns

and expectations, communication models, cultural features and motivations;
■■ developing new models and tools for communication, dialogue and engage-
ment (especially those ‘light’, unconventional and fun, e.g. theatre, art, fairs);
■■ encouraging appropriate new audiences to participate in

choice-making, as well as exchanging views, scientific
cultures and best practices in communication;
■■ ensuring appropriate access and engagement on ethical, so-

cial and legal dimensions of nanotechnology, by focusing on ways
to mitigate the nano-divide in communication and developing a
free database on best practices by funnelling the identified tools
and techniques for public engagement on nanotechnology.
These initiatives are bound to bring all major inputs coming from (i) the research com-
munity, (ii) industry, (iii) the Member States, and (iv) society into a much bigger picture.
Then everything should click into place to set up the continuous communication and
public engagement cooperation model that we want, with the aim to foster an ‘integrated,
safe and responsible nanotechnology’.
105
3.3.6. Step 6: Nano revolution

coming (The Message)
Major key messages, key audiences and key vehicles came from the sequence of EC
workshops integrated with a Web consultation (16) (quoted in Section 2.4.3).
3.3.6.1 Balancing messages out

Scientific communication usually implies communication about ‘uncertainty’. Much of
the information generated by research is not absolute and may change with new informa-
tion. This uncertainty can make it difficult to communicate with stakeholders, and this is
especially true for communication with commercial stakeholders or decision-makers, and
for communication to the general public through the media.
But there is a way out. Relevance is crucial in designing messages, while scientific rigour
is very important too. Then messages should be able to convey what it is currently known
and the degree of confidence in this material. It is crucial to emphasise what the develop-
ment of nanotechnology can bring to daily life, expanding on benefits and drawbacks,
specifying risks, uncertainties and hazards in an honest, scientifically sound and balanced
way. Balance is indeed of the essence here. Only balance can: (i) spark a sound, science-
based dialogue via appropriate media-based public engagement tools, e.g. television, ra-
dio, Web, blogging, citizen conferences, dedicated public events; (ii) provide EC services
with insights and recommendations to improve governance by building on awareness and
responsible societal dialogue on nanotechnology; (iii) shape the inputs to both design and
implement the EC Action Plans on nanotechnology fairly. This approach makes it possible
to single out a set of messages as the starting point of any appropriate communication on
nanotechnology:
❍❍ nano is not magic;
❍❍ nano is a new phase of technology exploiting nanoscale effects;
❍❍ itdeals with new beneficial applications and markets, impacting on

16
health, safety, privacy, ethics and the socioeconomic divide;
and Palumbo, J. (eds.),
(2007), quoted papers. ❍❍ it must and can be controlled and driven conscientiously.
106
3.3.6.2 Singling out issues for dialogue
and engagement
It is not easy to anticipate the kind of concerns or questions the various audiences may
raise. Still, attention should be focused on the issues clustered around groups of crucial
questions to provide a balanced view.
1. BENEFITS:
Are there any real improvements to the needs of citizens, consumers, society and
not just those of manufacturers?
Do we really need these products? How does this stuff improve my quality of life? How
could it help achieve societal needs?
2. SAFETY: Health, lifestyle and environmental concerns

Are we and our environment affected?
■■ What is the potential danger to my health and that of my family, es-

pecially due to nanoparticles and more specifically on cosmetics?
■■ Can I drink the water, eat the food, and breathe the air?
■■ What can I do to find out if my health has been affected?
■■ If the damage is already done, what can I do to reduce it?
■■ If there are any risks, what can I do to prevent any further damage?
■■ What about my children and future generations?
■■ We are already at risk because of certain emissions: will these increase our risk?
■■ How will this affect my quality of life and property values, if the
‘nano’ label is attached to our community and local environment?
■■ How will this affect environmental health and our bodily integrity
and image?
3. PRIVACY: Data and information concerns

Is my freedom affected?
■■ How sure are we?

■■ What is the worst case scenario?
■■ Will the applications of nano-properties increase sur-
veillance and jeopardise civil liberties?
■■ What do these figures mean and how did you get them?
■■ How do we know your studies are correct?
■■ What about other expert opinions on this issue?
■■ How does the level compare to international standards?
■■ You say this scenario can’t happen. Why not?
107
4. ENGAGEMENT & DECISION-MAKING: Involvement concerns

How will I be treated?
■■ How will we be involved in decision-making?

■■ How and who will communicate to us?
■■ Why should we trust you?
■■ How and when can we be reached?
■■ Who else are we talking with?
■■ When will we get any feedback?
5. ETHICS: Risk management concerns

What are we going to do about this?
■■ What ethical, moral and religious implications are involved?

■■ If there is a problem, when will it be corrected and how?
■■ Is our reaction to these issues ethically appropriate?
■■ What are the other options? Why should we fa-
vour the nanotechnology option?
■■ Why are we moving so slowly to correct the problem?
■■ Is it possible some kind of oversight may happen?
■■ Will the government be able to use this infor-
mation to legislate against our will?
3.3.7. Step 7: Sequencing nano-

communication (The Schedule)
Once the main guidelines of the Communication Roadmap are completed, the time/
space/budget coordinates need to be implemented.
Setting a timeline for communication activities is pivotal. We need to sequence all our
steps carefully. A timeline is the key to getting from a list of things we hope to accomplish
to a realistic, feasible plan. The more thoroughly we work through the other parts of this
workbook or the more ambitious the communication programme, the more precise the
time line will need to be.
■■ Any timeline should clarify what needs to be done, when and by whom, and fix at
least the most important deadlines.
■■ It will facilitate the assignment of tasks to particular team members, so everyone’s

responsibilities are clarified.
■■ It is helpful to spot times of work overload (suggesting a need for extra staff, resched-
uling, or some other solution) and slacker times (when additional communication
efforts might perhaps be packed in or there might be a loss of momentum).
108
■■ It makes gaps in the Communication Roadmap easier to spot, such as particular stake-
holders that may not have been reached yet.
■■ Itspeeds up the response to changing conditions (elements can be added or moved

around to meet new concerns, as needed).
3.3.8. Step 8: Measuring the sea

change (The Score)
Measurement and evaluation of communication is a constant process, keeping commu-
nication flexible and dynamic. Obtaining feedback on communication activities is also
essential to ensure effectiveness. However, ex-post assessment is often neglected, es-
pecially if it has not been planned in advance. Evaluation can be done at the same time
as the communication process (Formative evaluation) to check and fine-tune activities
during their development and delivery. Otherwise it can be postponed until all communi-
cation products are delivered (Summative evaluation). Both can address communication
outputs, outtakes and outcomes equally well. In either case there should be much oppor-
tunity for an ex-post evaluation. These techniques could allow future ex-post evaluation
of the communication efforts, though it is advisable to do this during the implementation
of the Communication Roadmap to fine tune and/or correct the communication actions.
❍❍ OUTPUT EVALUATION: How far does the communication product go?

(The Coverage)
Assessment of communication and dialogue outreach is carried out in terms of coverage

by product, audience and stakeholder, promoting attitude and behaviour changes.
❍❍ OUTTAKE EVALUATION: What do audiences do with the communica-

tion product? (The Feedback)
What is the change of attitude and perception of audiences with respect to the EC’s im-
age? What is their improvement in knowledge, awareness and trust? What is their change
of attitude about dialogue?
Identify the current change of attitude, perceptions, concerns and new communication
needs of audiences and stakeholders with respect to the output.
1. Information needs assessment (gathering questions after communication to draw up

a response).
2. Analysis of news clippings (spotting concerns and knowledge in progress to plan

future communication).
109

3. Public opinion polling (assessing opinion or reaction on key issues and how respons-
es from social and political institutions are evaluated).
4. Qualitative methods (e.g. devising questionnaires, discussion meetings, focus groups

with those people who have already been involved in communication).
Message pre-testing: how did audiences react to the communication product? What did
they learn?
1. Smog readability grading formula (evaluating the level comprehension needed to

understand an issue).
2. Message pre-test questionnaires (getting feedback on pilot materials).
3. Theatre testing (getting feedback on audiovisually presented materials).
4. Focus groups (getting feedback on and generating ideas about issues; getting a ‘pulse’
of attitudes and beliefs).
❍❍ OUTCOME EVALUATION: What do audiences do with the message?

(The Dialogue and Engagement)
What are the changes of behaviour of audiences with respect to EC? Have stakeholders
applied new knowledge to dialogue and engagement? What is the change of behaviour of
audiences when it comes to consensus-building around the EC’s policy approach? What
is the improvement in dialogue behaviour?
Identify the current change in behaviour of audiences in terms of dialogue and

engagement.
1. Public opinion polling and survey (organising a before and after survey of attitudes to
determine the relative success of communication).
2. Focus groups (getting qualitative feedback on whether the communication

tactics worked).
3. Behaviour observation (determining whether behaviour changed as a result of a com-

munication activity).
4. Cost-benefit analysis (examining the relative benefits of communication)
5. Experimental (isolating the communication effects on behaviour by setting up

experimental groups).
110
PART IV. HOW DO WE
GET THERE?
Implementing the
In promoting an integrated, safe, responsible and socially acceptable strategy for the
development and use of nanotechnology there is a real need for fresh ways of informing
audiences about nanotechnology and its implications for society. At the same time, it is
necessary to learn more about public opinion on what it perceives as ‘nanotechnology’
and build mechanisms that will allow open and accessible channels of communication
to connect different groups of stakeholders. This Communication Roadmap is meant
to be a theoretical framework to create new ways of promoting an integrated, safe and
responsible approach to nanotechnology, addressing both benefits and risks of nano
research and its applications. We now need to see how it can be turned into reality by
specific Actions.
Some recommended ‘Communication & Dialogue Recipes’ with a view to implement

the EC’s communication and dialogue from 2009 to 2011 (Section 4.1). The operational
Calls to Action to translate these recipes into a ‘Communication – Dialogue Menu’ are
fully described later on (Section 4.2): this is the whole portfolio of the EC’s communi-
cation projects, events, products, activities and publications expected to be delivered
between 2009 and 2011.
Additional summary tables are meant to describe the following.
■■ COMMUNICATION & DIALOGUE RECIPES: the recommendations for applying the

‘Five Ws’ (plus three additional questions) of the EC’s nanotechnology communication
method (addressing key audiences in their professional and leisure time, conveying
appropriate messages through specific vehicles) (Figure 11).
■■ COMMUNICATION & DIALOGUE MENU: the synthetic description of the EC’s Calls
to Action, expressed in terms of communication projects, events, products, activities
and publications expected to be delivered between 2009 and 2011, complete with
timing, venues and outreach figures for each one (Figure 14).
The implementation of the present Roadmap feeds on both philosophy and principles 1
See http://www.
create2009.europa.
of the European Year of Creativity and Innovation (1) and enriches it at the same time. It eu/about_the_year.
aims to raise awareness of the importance of creativity and innovation for personal, social html online
111
and economic development, disseminating good practices and stimulating education and
research, within the wider perspective of promoting a policy debate on these issues.
As creativity and innovation contribute to economic prosperity as well as to social

and individual wellbeing, most communication projects, actions, activities and events
have corresponded to this all-inclusive approach, targeting different audiences which
include young people, educators, business and policymakers, as well as the general
public, and encouraging society organisations to get involved at European, national
and local levels.
4.1 EC ‘Communication
and Dialogue Recipes’
on nanotechnology
On top of the ‘voice of theory’ communication recipes which should guide implemen-
tation of the Communication Roadmap, we have already described the outcomes of
dedicated EC-funded events reflecting the ‘voice of experience’ of experts in science
communication, media and art (2), who have been also discussing the recommendations
emerging from major studies on communicating nanotechnology (3). As a consequence, a
set of operational recommended recipes for EC communication on nanotechnology has
been outlined.
i) Whom to talk to? Identifying, surveying and segmenting target audiences to get to
know their values, perceptions, concerns and expectations, communication models, cul-
tural specificities, devoting special attention to youngsters, scientists, journalists, business
and industry, NGOs and decision-makers.
Choosing, knowing and segmenting the right audiences are of key importance to effective
communication. This must be carefully driven, attentively studied and transparently ad-

2
(A) and (B), quoted dressed via the appropriate vehicles.
papers; Bonazzi, M.
and Palumbo, J. (Ed.),
(2007), quoted paper. ii) Saying what and how? Developing new models and tools for communication, dialogue

3
Reworked from Ten and engagement, including spontaneous, unconventional and fun forms of expression,
commandments such as art, media, audiovisuals, television, radio and Web that should be encouraged.
on communicating
nanotechnology:
Games, competitions and contests should also be promoted as an effective tool to chal-
protest, profit and lenge young people imagination and engagement. The triangle approach hands-on,
perception (http:// hearts-on, minds-on should be strengthened to stimulate both curiosity and engagement.
www.nanoregulation.
ch) and at the site of the Bringing researchers to science centres and schools should complement the conventional
International conference approach to bring schools to the laboratories. High quality and science-sound informa-
on regulatory issues
(2005) (http://www. tion is an essential point, but should be effective for communication purposes to create
nanoeurope.com). attention and awareness to begin with.
112
Appropriate approaches to attain effectively target audiences should be based on what
is relevant for them.
iii) Where and When? Some audiences are best reached during their ‘professional’ (or
school) time, while others would be best reached during their leisure time.
Diversifying communication and dialogue strategies in different time-windows could

attain different audiences or similar audiences under different vehicles, providing
various standpoints.
iv) Who informs? Ensure access to reliable and high-quality information on ethical, social
and legal dimensions of nanotechnology and their potential implications for daily life;
additional focus is examined on ways to mitigate the nano-divide in communication and
developing a free database on best practices by funnelling all information towards an
international body.
Reputation and credibility of information providers is crucial. The possibility of establish-

ing a ‘super-partes’ agency should be addressed, which could funnel the major credible
actors, e.g. NGOs, scientists, selected media.
v) Who distributes the information? The role of multipliers such as journalists, teachers,
opinion-makers and influential people is pivotal as they have an important role in com-
municating with a larger public. They should be the first targets to reach.
It is necessary for scientists to work together with multipliers as the public trust
them most.
vi) Who decides? Choice-making processes need to be developed with appropriate

new audiences, exchanging visions, scientific cultures and mobility of practitioners in
communication.
Individual choices are becoming more relevant in decision-making processes. They are
crucial to consumer acceptance or rejection of nanotechnology. Dialogue should encour-
age ways to make personal choices on the basis of reliable and trustworthy information.
vii) ‘High tech needs high public trust’ Behind any debate about modern technology the
question of trust features prominently, all the more for sophisticated and complex nano-
technology. This appears to be the golden rule for dialogue here. Citizens wonder how
can they be sure politicians, industry or scientists are telling the truth? Can they ask for any
guarantees so that their confidence is not misplaced? In general, trust in industry, politi-
cians, and governments seems to be at an all-time low. At most, consumers appear to put
their trust into NGOs and, to some extent, into scientists. Public trust does not come out
of the blue. Regulators and regulations do not create public trust automatically and
many people don’t seem to know much about them anyway. As for industry, the public
can sometimes be outright suspicious of it.
113
Policymakers have to improve their communication strategies to gain public trust, and
communication is the key. It should be targeted, honest, transparent and open, covering
benefits and risks in a balanced way.
viii) ‘People, not just science, create public trust’
Scientific arguments about the potential benefits or threats of a technology do not create
trust for their own sake. On the contrary, listening to experts contradicting each other can
often trouble people or put them off in the long run. In the worst case, this can lead to
technology rejection and boycott. People do not believe scientific arguments per se, but
are more inclined to put trust into specific persons or organisations who are believed to
act in the same way as the people would.
Reputation and credibility are more important to the public than sophisticated
arguments.
ix) ‘Media love a good nano story’
After all, the media are positively fascinated by nano. More that 70% of media cover-
age about nano tends to be favourable. And if one of the strongest effects of media
coverage is due to the way contents are presented, nano can rely on the media being
intrigued and looking for possible nano applications in the nearest future with seem-
ingly genuine curiosity.
Media love nanotechnology. So it is important to give them good stories before somebody
else does the opposite.
x) ‘Technology acceptance is based on individual values’
Consumers can easily be overwhelmed by information when coming to grips with com-
plex technologies. When uncertainty prevails, information is scarce and decisions still
need to be made, shared personal values can provide something to hang on to. Such
values tend to be consistent over time and can be communicated to justify decisions.
Personal intuitions are increasingly shaping consumers’ decisions – and these are usually
based on personal attitudes and values.
Individual values are becoming more relevant in decision-making processes. They are
crucial to nanotechnology acceptance or rejection by the consumer.
xi) ‘Communication goes well beyond information’
The presumed equation: ‘More information leads to more acceptance’ has been proven to
be wrong. The same mistake can occur by thinking that a better educated public may war-
rant a more favourable attitude towards nanotechnology. Piling up on additional informa-
114
tion to get acceptance is quite possibly useless, especially when information campaigns
by the industry are perceived as being manipulative and PR-driven.
Lack of dialogue about acceptance or rejection of nanotechnology is not a problem of

information, but of communication.
xii) ‘Technology risk perception becomes reality’
Human risk perception seems to be complicated and often irrational. These patterns,
which include the perception of everyday threats, are very hard to manipulate because,
more often than not, they are the result of an evolutionary process. It’s important to keep
this in mind before setting out to communicate nanotechnology, whose risk perception
patterns are still unclear because of the subject’s very nature.
It is no use trying to manipulate risk perception. It’s much more useful to try and under-
stand it and deal with it.
xiii) ‘Nano hype is bound to create frustration’
Utopian nano-scientists are known to claim from time to time that nanotechnology will
clean up the environment, eradicate world poverty and free the human race from disease,
ageing and probably death further down the line. If nano expectations are blown out of
proportion, it is quite inevitable the media will lap it up and hype it up. People will then
believe that these ‘nano-dreams’ are about to come true, creating disappointment which
is toxic to public trust.
Avoid any hype to prevent disappointing citizens and consumers.
xiv) ‘Balancing nano benefits and risks’
If the public needs to weigh the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, it must know and
understand both in a realistic way. If any risks are to be taken, then the product needs to
have tangible benefits for consumers, and the industry has to show it can produce useful
products with remarkable benefits.
One-sided information breeds suspicions.
xv) ‘Is there any nano in here? Consumers want to be told’
Consumers want to be informed about the ingredients, contents, composition and even
the packaging of the products they are buying.
Tag nano-products with a nano-label to build trust and good public relations.
115
116

ACTIONS AUDIENCES
Industry/ Decision
Youngsters Scientists Media businesses NGOs makers
AUDIENCE: Children 5-13 sensitive to

•• sensitive to
•• industry
•• aiming to
•• aim to act on
••
training to key values: shows a strong exploit dif- sensitising
are not interested in nano
•• communicate motivation ferent needs different levels
neutrality
••
trust multipliers (can be reached with special
•• basic scientific to seek out according to of decision
training programmes) facts relationship
•• information the organisa- makers, local,
building because they tion and target national,
TABLE 11.1 Activities targeting ‘professional time’

Table 11. EC ‘Communication and Dialogue Recipes’ on nanotechnology
trust/mistrust teachers, parents
•• motivated as
••
know there is of the group supranational
influencers in Pro-activity
••
a market for
AUDIENCE: Teens 14-18 communica-
sensitive and
••
aim to exploit
••
nanotechnol-
tion with the and address
aim at choosing university
•• linked to ogy
public cultural
associated
need information
•• nano-
•• differences
Audiences
production and language
consider gender differences
•• business
•• companies issues (which
need feedback
•• NGOs
•• aims at manip- must be taken
WHY ulating nano into account
Associated Multipliers: scientists
•• materials and especially
teachers, celebrities (singers, pop stars, football
•• (can provide components when dealing
players and famous scientists) briefings) (they might with local
ethicists
•• require policymakers)
AUDIENCE: Youngsters 19-22 information,
support and
aiming at choosing careers
••
help – particu-
require information
•• larly SMes)
sensitive to gender differences
••
Associated Multipliers:
celebrities, famous scientists; politicians;
••
journalists/media; industry; teachers/scientists/
professors; NGOs
ACTIONS AUDIENCES
Industry/ Decision
AUDIENCE: Children 5-13 OBJECTIVES: OBJECTIVES: OBJECTIVES: OBJECTIVES: OBJECTIVES:

Become more
•• Search/find/
•• Make profit
•• Fulfil mandate
•• Achieve good
••
OBJECTIVES: involved sell news governance
stimulate curiosity
•• provide
•• involve NGOs
••
(bad/good)
MESSAGE: accessible in building awareness
••
influence parents
•• stimulate the
•• MESSAGE: information permanent of risks and
MESSAGE: desire to com- nano is hap-
•• on product channels of benefits
municate with pening now risks communica-
nano is cool/fun/interesting
•• broaden
••
laypeople tion
crucial
•• show the
•• perspectives
TO AUDIENCE: Teens 14-18 promote
•• societal benefit of nan- involve NGOs
•• including
WHOM awareness implications of otechnology in ongoing economics
OBJECTIVES: and basic Nanotechs in customers’ information
(Audi- stimulate interest
•• regulate on EU
••
knowledge daily life sharing
ence) care about
•• level for local
foster a critical attitude and stimulate dialogue
•• of societal
basic scientific advise small
•• involve NGOs
•• policymakers.
WITH to make them into responsible citizens consequences
facts businesses on in communi-
(for natural make in-
••
WHAT MESSAGE: nanotechnol- cation on risk,
scientists) ternational
EFFECT nano is trendy/fun/intellectually challenging
•• ogy regulation legislation,
comparisons
foster motiva-
•• and on the regulation
(Objec- you can make a difference
•• tion to spread financial ex-
on regulation
tives) MESSAGE: and policy
AUDIENCE: Youngsters 19-22 awareness pectations
EU is address-
••
WHAT and basic regarding MESSAGE:
ing ELSA of
OBJECTIVES: knowledge of nano
nanotechs
care about
••
(message) stimulate interest in science careers and in-
•• scientific facts what audi-
MESSAGE:
crease knowledge of opportunities in science (for social EU is
•• ences/citizens/
crucial
••
scientists) promoting stakeholders/
create responsible citizens
•• societal
communica- media think
implications of
MESSAGE: tion and say
nanotechs
nano is the future
••
care about
••
nano is interesting and it represents a challeng-
••
basic scientific
ing professional opportunity
facts
you can make a difference
••
117
118

ACTIONS AUDIENCES
Industry/ Decision
AUDIENCE: YOUNG PEOPLE communica-

•• set up an im-
•• provide
•• promote the
•• create contin-
••
tion training age and film viable and creation of uous channels
art festival, theatre, movies, games
•• for natural and database on smart Internet platforms and of communi-
exhibitions and activities in science museums
•• social scien- nano resources forums linking cation outside
tists trough scientists to times of crisis
develop a
•• develop
••
AUDIENCE: Children 5-13 seminars, NGOs
neutral re- product label- provide info
••
courses, sum-
exhibitions in cultural centres, science centres,
•• source centre ling with a develop pair-
•• on differ-
mer schools
edutainment on nano special logo ing schemes ent levels
meetings
•• indicating to provide for local,
events in schools
•• develop per-
••
between the presence permanent national or
son-to-person
games, cartoons
•• natural, social of nanotech- connections specialised de-
relationship
scientists and nologytreated between cision makers
nano fairs, theatre, festivals
•• building initia-
communica- products groups
tives between
the Internet, TV-radio-media
•• tors
journalists of develop
•• guarantee
••
friendly guide, mascot or sympathy figure to
•• presentations
•• all special- word-ofmouth green quality
show children the nano world for senior ties and nano marketing markers for
scientists – scientists, ethi- and product laboratories
TO AUDIENCE: Teens 14-18 interview cists, social demonstra- who reach
WHOM coaching scientists, tion: longterm pre-defined
Internet platforms, podcasts/trendy media
••
(Audi- NGOs. etc. perspective standards
real hands-on
••
ence) organised debates
•• of safety in
experiences set up tutorial,
••
celebrity testimonials on science issues
••
handling
shadowing
HOW nano-products
bringing famous scientist to schools
••
work, place-
(Vehicle) ment
festivals
•• opportunities
contests for video and creative art productions
•• set up events/
••
theatre productions
•• discus-
sion events
edutainment interactive applications – hands-
•• developed in
on experiments partnership
visits to labs/experimenting/stage experiments/
•• with media
dialogue
AUDIENCE: Youngsters 19-22

open labs, out-campus events, real lab guided
••
tours contact with scientists
Internet, movies
••
internships, orientation fairs, EC stands
••
theatre, games, conferences/shows
••
TABLE 11.1 Activities targeting ‘leisure time’
WITH WHAT
EFFECT WHAT HOW
(Objectives) (message) (Vehicle)
Stimulate Interdisciplinarity: Games about nano targeted to different groups of public using
curiosity scientists interact appropriate media and carrying differentiated messages:
using perception, with artists and
body language, other groups to Video games
••
dance and art maximise impact, Table games
••
ensure quality of
Foster user- information and Strategy games
••
oriented fine-tune approach Role play games
••
approach to different needs
answering the Educational games
••
question: why is Group or multi-player games
••
this interesting
for me? Card games
••
Construction games – e.g. nano building blocks like molecular models especially
designed for molecular machines or tactile games: building with boxers’ gloves to give
an idea of limited movement, instrumentation for small object handling, etc.
Provide simple Debate: it needs Virtual Internet environment activities:

and realistic to be stimulated
information: and encouraged – Virtual guided tour to a nano-environment, to give the idea of scale and nano-dimensions. A guide or mascot
••
what is nano? exchange of views (made-up funny character) can be used to show the visitor around the virtual environment. ‘Super-Nano’ for
It is a science, is important for example or a user-generated character or a combination of the two. Edutainment tools can be made available
not magic public and other Second life virtual environment where the nanoworld comes alive
••
Knowledge groups involved
Interactive experiment with user-generated output involving a virtual or real nano-lab where the user can
••
is growing
choose variables and perform experiments, verifying outputs and experiencing scenarios
and evolving,
nothing is fixed Internet platform or portal connecting different interest groups, different competences – for example scientists
••
with artists, journalists or youngsters
119
120

WITH WHAT
EFFECT WHAT HOW
(Objectives) (message) (Vehicle)
Consider social Interactivity Contemporary art nano festival – a large event for everyone, lasting 3-4 days with nano
and ethical with the public is interpreted though various disciplines, particularly contemporary art. Some possible
implications, crucial to ensure features (which can be isolated to form a project in their own right) are below.
emphasising engagement, by
openly and creating artistic Art exhibition with installations that introduce the public to the creative processes by offering the possibility
••
honestly both works together, to interact with the artworks, which change following actions carried out by users. Introduction of nanophys-
benefits and risks launch competitions, ics laws into the design of the artwork itself, for example self-assembling application in art performance,
using facts and Web-based methods installation, theatre, etc.
figures, timelines, such as blogs, Web Conference or talk by a scientist connected to an artistic means of expression interpreting the words through
••
scenarios cameras and media- a visual aid or an artistic performance where dancers interpret what the scientist says through movement.
based platforms Artists should collaborate with scientists at script writing
Dance performance using choreography to give an idea of the nano-dimensions (‘There is plenty of room at
••
the bottom’, for example, from Feynman’s famous quotation, interpreted by dancers to give an idea of the
void between atoms
Performance constructed according to the laws of quantum physics, for example with a self-assembling struc-
••
ture, to give the public an intuitive perception of the physical laws at nanoscale
Workshops involving school groups or selected groups of specific publics
••
Short movies about nano – a competition can be launched to ensure the public’s participation
••
Connections to the outside world, through the Internet, webcams, other media
••
Writing and performance of nano-songs, acoustic voyage into the nano-world, symphony about nano-scale
••
interactions, music written and performed using ideas from physical behaviours at the nanoscale
Feedback from Travelling event

the public is
essential through Means of transport such as a train, caravan or a truck disguised as a spaceship designed to reach every social
••
appropriate means destination, remote places and developing countries too
in every activity Different activities can be packed into the nano-train or truck: they should involve artistic media and interac-
••
tive artistic applications, an exhibition, a moving laboratory with experiments and demonstrations
Schools, villages and public spaces are some of the possible destinations, along with stations and airports
••
4.2 EC ‘Communication
and Dialogue Menu’
on nanotechnology
The ‘Communication Recipes’ are translated into reality here. This section provides a
description of the EC communication projects, events, products, activities and publica-
tions expected to be delivered from 2009 to 2011, complete with scheduling, venues and
outreach figures.
4.2.1. EURONANOFORUM 2009 Project

The EURONANOFORUM 2009 conference was launched by the Czech Presidency as a
milestone in the history of nanotechnology communication. It was the fourth of a series
of top-level international nanotechnology conferences organised within the framework of
rotating Presidencies of the European Union, and it was held in Prague at the beginning of
June 2009 under the auspices of the Czech Ministry for Education, Youth and Sports with
the support of the Industrial Technologies Programme of the European Commission.
Focusing on ‘Nanotechnology for a sustainable economy’, this prestigious event ad-

dressed the contribution and challenges of nanotechnology research to a sustainable de-
velopment of European industry and society. Different sessions, workshops, and several
award-winning exhibitions were organised. A unique set of communication activities for
the general public and especially aimed at young people underpinned this conference.
EuroNanoForum 2009 helped to address several crucial related issues, such as the need
for a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependence, a substantial
increase in energy and material efficiency, pollution control, clean water management
and a sustainable quality of life for European citizens through a whole range of nanotech-
nology applications (4).
4
http://www.euronano-
EC nanotechnology events on such a scale are held once every two years. The previous forum2009.eu/.
ones took place in 2003 (5), 2005 (6) and 2007 (7). Euronanoforum 2009 had the added 5
challenge of including art as a major tool to communicate nanotechnology to the general forum2003.org/.
public. A specific cross-fertilisation workshop was set up to gather the coordinators of EU
6
forum2005.org/.
projects on nanotechnology communication and public, artists and designers. This work- 7
http://www.euro-
shop was aimed at putting together business, artists, EU project coordinators and journal- nanoforum2007.de/.
ists in the context of the NANOSCOPE event, which was organised by the Czech Tesla 8
http://www.utesla.cz/,
Union, and run in parallel to the Conference with the specific objective of communicat- http://o----o.info/519/
nanoskop/, http://
ing nanotechnology through visual (painting, sculpture, architecture, design, audiovisuals, www.doxprague.org/
Web games) and expressive arts (dance, music, body language) (8). cs/press-releases.
121
4.2.2. Ad hoc Industrial Advisory Group

An ad hoc advisory group on industrial nanotechnologies was set up in the autumn of
2008 with the aim of debating, assessing and advising the industry about the direction
nanotechnology research and innovation are taking across Europe. The group advises
on the measures that are best suited to promote a strong European nanotechnology in-
dustry, by taking special care of future industrial developments and trends. In particular,
the group’s findings are expected to provide industrial reasoning and targeting for an
extended 2010-2015 plan to be used in preparation of future FP7 calls for proposals in the
field of nanosciences and nanotechnologies. The working group brings together indus-
trialists from various application sectors, business-to-business suppliers and equipment
manufacturers. In order to keep the group dynamic and efficient, several participants are
also stakeholders in one of the European Technology Platforms (ETP)s relevant to nano-
technology (e.g. suschem, construction, manufuture,nanomedicine, textile and clothing,
forest-based industries, nano-electronics, micro-nano manufacturing – MINAM). Five ad
hoc group meetings have been convened in Brussels to date and the group is expected to
complete its work under the current structure in October 2009.
4.2.3. Workshop on public engagement

in nanotechnology (NANO4YOU)
As an updated follow-up of the two previously mentioned workshops and open Web
consultation on strategy and recommendations for action on communication outreach
(9) (EC, February and October 2007), this workshop is expected to be held in Brussels
around February 2010 and will focus on dialogue and engagement on nanotechnology,
i.e. second Call to Action (Section 3.3.3.5 and 3.3.3.5.3.2). It will gather selected experts
in media, public engagement and communication to come up with operative recommen-
dations for future European funding on those innovative approaches that might be most
suited to engage European society in a lively dialogue on nanotechnology. Experts in the
field of science communication will share success, best practices and challenging stories,
and will concentrate their effort on giving different audiences a ‘voice’ in policymaking
that is capable of shaping the environment in nanotechnology development.
9
(A) and (B), quoted
papers; Bonazzi, M.
and Palumbo, J. (Ed.),
4.2.4. New CORDIS nanotechnology
(2007), quoted paper.
10
http://cordis.europa. EC web page and leaflet
eu/nanotechnology/,
http://cordis.europa.
eu/fp7/cooperation/ A new website and a leaflet will be devoted to nanotechnology, starting from March 2010.
nanotechnology_ This will be integrating the information currently available in various EC nanotechnology
en.html, http://ec.europa.
eu/nanotechnology/ websites (10). Fundamental science, nanomaterials, nanomanufacturing and industrial inte-
index_en.html. gration will be addressed. Information on funding procedures in FP7, getting local support,
122
finding partners and calls will be the major focus, but success stories will be featured as well.
A further dedicated survey could take place to identify the key profile, expectations, concerns
and suggestions of the current users of the EC’s nanotechnology website in order to have a
clear picture of the extent and limits of the current outreach via the EC’s Web tools and see
what can be improved. This should be aimed at identifying the audience, the information
content, the degree of satisfaction and the expectations of current and potential users.
4.2.5. EU Member States High-Level Experts

Group on nanotechnology
A High-Level Experts Group of EU Member States and FP7 Associated States has been formed
and held meetings in Brussels during February and June 2009. It has been agreed to give fur-
ther high priority to research in the area of risk management, in particular the study of the
impact of nanoparticles on health safety and environment (HSE). The objective is to harmon-
ise all research work on nanotechnology that is taking place in the Member States and the
FP7 associated States and the Commission’s Framework programme, maximising synergy and
effectiveness among these programmes. In the case of HSE Research projects in the domain,
both EC and nationally funded projects are clustered into a single nanosafety cluster including
other relevant projects. In the immediate future, it will consider infrastructure requirements,
foresight as well as investigate bringing together industry and research laboratories to resolve
‘knowledge gaps’ with respect to regulatory activities. Following this pilot case, other areas
such as the EU innovation framework, education and skills will be targeted.
4.2.6. ECSITE Conference

The ECSITE Annual Conference of science centres and museums, which was held in
Milan at the beginning of June 2009, gathered about 2,000 multipliers ranging from sci-
ence communication professionals to the media. As museums and science centres regard
education as one of their very reasons to be, they know they need to offer ever-engaging
choices to their visitors in order to have an impact on society. This top international forum
was particularly interesting in the way it put together key multipliers in science communi-
cation. The European Commission took this opportunity to present here its own philoso-
phy, policy and related strategy for communicating nanotechnology at this Conference by
way of four recently EC-funded European projects with an overall budget of EUR 5 million
within the Seventh Framework Programme for RTD.
Both the outline and the initial activities of these projects were discussed with the audi-
ence, so was setting up a dedicated workshop for discussion between the speakers and the
audience. Science museums, science centres, media, research institutes, NGOs, business
and artists from about 25 countries are involved in these projects, which are described in
great detail across the following chapters. They will surely contribute to the improvement
of quality of European life on the basis of knowledge, tolerance, respect and democracy.
123
A dedicated workshop was set up during the conference to discuss nanotechnology com-
munication between journalists, science centres, schools and policymakers. It was openly
recognised that the job of communicating nanotechnology now aims to find stimulating
fresh suggestions by venturing into non-conventional domains and ‘languages’, and by
using new perspectives and skills. It means that art, music, theatre, filmmaking, Web and
design can give nanotechnology communication a completely new spring in its step.
4.2.7. Projects on communication

outreach and education
Four projects focused on communication have recently been launched under the EC’s
Seventh Framework Programme for Research funding scheme. They are called NANOTV,
NANOTOTOUCH, NANOYOU and TIMEFORNANO. Stakeholders from science centres
and foundations, business, research institutes, NGOs, and television networks from about
27 EU Member and Associated States are involved in these projects.
Different sets of science centres and schools from these countries will benefit from spe-
cific project activities.
NGOs: ORT, Israel; EUN European SchoolNet (EU, Belgium); Fondazione IDIS (Italy).
Art Collectives: BridA Collective Art, zavod za sodobno (Slovenia).
Research institutes: University of Cambridge (UK); iNANO (Denmark); Centre for Social
Innovation (Austria); Institute of Nanotechnology (UK); Politechnika Warszawska - War-
saw University of Technology (Poland); Observa (Italy); Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet
München (Germany); Università degli Studi di Milano University of Milano – Interdis-
ciplinary Centre for Nanostructured Materials and Interfaces (Italy); Chalmers Tekniska
Hoegskola AB (Sweden); Universiteit Antwerpen (Belgium); TARTU ULIKOOL University
of Tartu – Institute of Physics (Estonia); Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche (National
Research Council) – Institute of Cybernetics ‘E.Caianiello’ (Italy); Technische Universitaet
Muenchen (Germany).
Science Centres and Science Foundations: Barcelona Science Park (Spain); Association
Européenne des Expositions Scientifiques, Techniques et Industrielles ECSITE (EU, Bel-
gium); ECSITE UK (England); Grenoble Science Centre (France); Cité des Sciences et de
l’industrie (France); Cittá della Scienza (Italy); Deutsches Museum von Meisterwerken
der Naturwissenschaft und Technik (Germany); Ciência Viva - Agência Nacional para a
Cultura Ciêntifica e Tecnológica (Portugal); Centre de culture scientifique technique et
industrielle CCSTI (France); Turkey Science Centres Foundation (Turkey); Technopolis®,
the Flemish science centre (Belgium); Tiedekeskussäätiö – Heureka (Finland); The British
Association for the Advancement of Science (ECSITE-UK); Fondazione Museo Nazionale
124
della Scienza e della Tecnologia Leonardo da Vinci (Italy); Universeum AB (Sweden);
SIHTASUTUS TEADUSKESKUS AHHAA - Science Centre AHHAA Foundation (Estonia).
Businesses: iCons s.r.l. (Italy); Leonardo Films GmbH (Germany); Gedeon Programmes SA
(France); CUEN s.r.l. (Italy); ARTTIC (Israel).
Television networks: forty major television networks from Andorra, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, The
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and the UK are participating, in addition to EuroNews and Eurovision.
4.2.7.1 NANOTV Project

The NANOTV project (http://www.youris.com) will raise public awareness of the very
best of European nanotechnology research across all European countries through a new
communication model joining television media and the Internet (11). In particular, NANO-
TV will create a series of 14 high-quality free-of-rights Video News Releases for the gen-
eral public and young people on the basis of the key results of such research.
Each of these Video News Releases (VNRs) will be produced in such a way as to adapt
easily to the needs of a wide range of European TV channels. They will fit nicely into the
mainstream science and news TV broadcasting of around 40 major national TV channels
in Europe and beyond. Among the 27 Member States, networks from Cyprus, Czech
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Po-
land, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and others, as well
as some international channels like Euronews and Eurovision are expected to broadcast
these audiovisuals from 2010 onwards.
All of the project’s VNRs will be published into the European independent research media
portal http://www.youris.com, which hosts and supports NANO TV project, where they
will be permanently available in streaming mode. Each VNR will pick success stories at
the cutting edge of European nanotechnology research as the starting point on which to
‘peg’ a much wider picture of the major nano issues, with the purpose of providing a bal-
anced view of the potential advantages and risks of nano applications.
A careful editorial plan, drawn up by the editorial manager, will identify some of the very
best European stories after a thorough evaluation of all the science and applications cross-
overs between the different nano domains, each carrying its own issues to be portrayed in
a balanced way. These will focus on the associated benefits and any ethical, legal, social
possible bottlenecks.
The project’s coordinator iCons (Italy) is a media and market consultancy based in Milan. Two 11
NANOTV Annex I,
Description of Work,
European science film producers, Gedeon Programmes (France) and Leonardo Film (Germany) contract No NMP-
will deliver the films. The scientific partner is the Institute of Nanotechnology in Glasgow. CSA-2-233486, EC.
125
In order to give the audience a broader perspective about the bigger nano-debate out
there, each VNR will be supported by original articles and interviews on the above-
mentioned Web portal, which will develop each nano issue into a range of in-depth
features and interviews branching out far beyond the selected TV projects. This will allow
the establishment of a sound science-based dialogue on nano issues by introducing all
released videos and the associated written materials, such as articles and press releases,
into a series of acknowledged media platforms, nano-centred Internet resources, and
selected European online newspapers.
A dialogue with readers and viewers will be also opened through another original feature
on the same Web portal, where a carefully chosen ‘scientist of the month’ will reply to
selected questions about each nano issue tackled by the VNRs.
A first, provisional clustering of the major nano research areas could group early diagno-
sis, regenerative medicine, theranostics and neuroprosthetics; energy, environment and
ICT will obviously be covered. In any case the editorial plan will be giving full attention to
‘crossover’ issues as well, such as nanoparticles, biosensors, biomimicry and nanomem-
branes. Four VNRs out of 14 will specifically be aimed at a young audience.
126
Nanotechnology can provide new diagnostics and prosthetics: television networks can
disseminate effectively these innovative prospects, avoiding misleading messages and
hypes (courtesy of SMARTHAND project)
4.2.7.2 NANOTOTOUCH Project

The NANOTOTOUCH project (http://www.museoscienza.org/english/projects/nanotot-
ouch.asp) aims to create innovative environments for the general public to learn about
nano research and get involved into a discussion about it by directly involving the actors
of research themselves (12).
It proposes to do this by taking the laboratory environment and the research work out
of enclosed academic campuses and relocating them right in the midst of the public in
science museums and science centres. Three science museums and three science centres
will closely cooperate with local university partners to create three permanent Open
Nano Lab locations (in Munich, Milan and Gothenburg) and three Nano Researcher Live
areas (in Mechelen, Tartu and Naples). In these places the visitors will experience ‘live’ the NANOTOTOUCH
12
Annex I, Description
day-to-day practices and processes of nano research conducted by young scientists. This of Work, contract n°,
peer-to-peer dialogue on an equal basis between general public and nano-researchers NMP-CSA-2-233473, EC.
127
not only creates a bidirectional feedback, it also minimises the expert-to-lay bias (‘top-
down’ approach) inherent in current science communication processes with authoritative
top researchers. These experiences will be uploaded to the websites of other projects
(NANOTV, NANOYOU, TIMEFORNANO) reaching at least 10 EU Member and Associ-
ated States. This process will also establish new role models for choosing science as a
career: young adults thinking of entering science will be able to discuss various aspects
of it with young researchers who themselves made this decision recently, whilst upcom-
ing researchers will learn that communication is a self-evident part of their professional
identity. This project aims at pushing science communication to its extreme, merging
communication and research in a powerful way and responding to the need for more
transparency and accessibility in science.
The NANOTOTOUCH project encompasses different main activities in two clusters, i.e.
sustainable infrastructures and events.
Innovative approaches are crucial to trigger the dialogue between young people and
scientists on nanotechnology (courtesy of NANOTOTOUCH project)
128
4.2.7.2.1 Sustainable infrastructures
4.2.7.2.1.1 Open Nano Labs

These are designed to test the need and viability of establishing a sustainable infrastruc-
ture of public sites (‘Open Nano Labs’ and ‘Nano Researcher Live’ event areas) where the
general public will be informed about nano research on a regular, day-to-day basis and
will be able to engage personally with the researchers themselves.
4.2.7.2.1.2 ‘Nano researcher Live’

The objective here is not only to inform the public about recent nano science achieve-
ments but also to let the public experience hands-on, hearts-on and minds-on ‘live’ the
day-to-day practices and processes of nano research. The project answers the recognised
need for a Public Understanding and Engagement with Research rather than a Public
Understanding of Science.
The Open Nano-Lab enables young people to work together with researchers on nano-
technology (courtesy of NANOTOTOUCH project)
4.2.7.2.2 Events and infrastructures
They will offer a peer-to-peer dialogue on an even basis between general public and nano
researchers, which encourages bidirectional feedback. In order to minimise the expert-to-
lay bias (‘top-down’ approach) inherent to science communication processes, this project
explicitly involves young scientists, not the authoritative well-experienced top research-
ers. It therefore also includes a strong component of communication skills training.
129
As a result, the academic discourse about the ethical issues and societal implications of
nano technology will focus much more on the everyday problems and questions person-
ally experienced by people, as expressed in the discussions initiated by the hands-on
everyday lab practice in the Open Nano Labs or the Nano Research Live events.
4.2.7.2.2.1 School programmes

These will make sure that an interested public, especially students and teachers, is going
to profit from the strength of Science Centres and museums through a direct encounter
with nano researchers and their activities. These specially tailored school programmes
will allow for a more thorough dialogue and feedback.
They will also provide both research and educational institutions with a model for strong
and effective links and collaboration. Experiences will be documented and described in
detail in several handbooks or ‘cookbooks’.
4.2.7.2.2.2 Open Campus Days, Science

Festivals, ‘Meet the Scientist’
Dedicated events will be set up to bring the public into direct contact with scientists. By pro-
viding a training infrastructure for the scientists involved and enclosing elements of authentic
research, the ‘Nano Researcher Live’ format of this project will complement these formats.
A true premiere, the Nano Researcher Live Area allows visitors of a science centre to
experience directly a permanent research installation, interacting with the scientists
(courtesy of NANOTOTOTUCH project)
130
The timing of these activities is different according to their location: the ‘Open Nano
Labs’ in Milan and Gothenburg will be ready and open to the public from March 2010,
whereas the ‘Nano Researcher Live Areas’ will be up and running from January 2010.
These activities are expected to be displayed in various other European locations, which
will increase their outreach potential. However, the ‘Open Nano Lab’ in the Deutsches
Museum (Munich) is already fully functioning, except for about three or four weeks in
November 2009 when it will be moved to the brand new Centre of New Technologies
inside the Deutsches Museum, which is scheduled to open on November 20. An extraor-
dinary number of visitors and a powerful press coverage are expected, starting from the
centre’s opening date.
4.2.7.3 NANOYOU Project

The NANOYOU project (http://www.zsi.at/en/projekte/5206.html) will design and carry
out a communication and outreach programme in nanotechnology aimed at young Eu-
ropean generations (13). The project will reach teenagers through school programmes
to take place in hundreds of pilot schools from at least 20 EU Member and Associated
States (AS). Additional schools from other 7 Member/Associated States are expected to
be encouraged by pilot schools to join the project’s activities. Specific additional pro-
grammes aimed at young adults over the age of 18 will be also offered in science centres.
There are plans to involve at least 400 schools and reach more than 25,000 students
through the school programmes. The science centres programme is expected to reach an
initial 4,000 young adults and many more subsequently as more science centres adopt
the programme. The expectation is to raise understanding and awareness on nanotech-
nology, and its potential benefits and risks. So effective programming will be shaped
to meet the educational capabilities and interests of the target young population. This
will combine temporary exhibitions, innovative computer games, experiments and other
online content, with workshops aimed at promoting dialogue that will raise the partici-
pants’ awareness of ethical, legal and societal aspects of nanotechnology. The contents
will be balanced and up-to-date, and teacher training materials will be prepared to equip
science teachers and other staff accordingly. Three main areas of nanotechnology (i.e. 13
NANOYOU Annex I,
Description of Work,
nanomedicine, nano-and energy/environment, and nano- and ICT) will be addressed contract n°, NMP-
and presented to different age audience groups. CSA-2-233433, EC.
131
NANOYOU Programme
Information provision: Schools

NT basic knowledge
• Video, presentation, posters
• What is NT Workshop 11-13
• Virtual Exhibition
• NT time machine virual game
Promotion of dialogue: 14-18

ELSA of NT for schools
• Role Play workshop
• NT virtual dialogue
Promotion of dialogue: Science Centres

ELSA of NT for science Centres
• NT daily environment investigation
• Real sized NT experiment
• NT users’ conference 19-25
• Travelling Exhibition
Pioneering approaches are pivotal for young people to understand nanotechnology:

schools and science centres are trained to activate ground-breaking instruments for
communication and dialogue (courtesy of NANOYOU project)
4.2.7.3.1 Activities in schools
■■ In the first audience group, outreach will be implemented by delivering informa-

tion on nanotechnology in schools; this will be followed by a phase based on the
promotion of dialogue. In these activities both the 11-13 and 14-18 age segments
will be addressed.
132
Schools and science centres play complementary roles to trigger communication and
dialogue on nanotechnology (courtesy of NANOYOU project)
4.2.7.3.1.1 Information provision

In an initial phase, a set of computer-based virtual tools and activities, a short video,
an exhibition area, and creative workshop sessions will be developed. The project’s
ambitious goal of reaching a wide audience (over 400 schools and over 25,000 students)
requires a ‘light’ and flexible Communication Roadmap that will use Web-based activities
and face-to-face workshops.
133
4.2.7.3.1.1.1 Virtual tools, online experiments, role-play workshop

A second phase will develop tools and activities designed to inform young people about
nanotechnology and raise their interest, including online experiments and a comparison
of pre-Nano and Nano solutions for particular needs. Tools and activities will be designed
to engage young people in dialogue about the social implications, for example a role-
play workshop according to various cognitive abilities of the three target age groups.
Activities and dilemmas will allow to develop teacher training materials that will enable
science teachers and other staff to guide and tutor outreach activities. Major outreach
activities will take place in schools across 20 or more EU Member States/Associate States.
Schools may choose a one-day programme or use a number of lesson modules, allowing
teachers the flexibility of integrating the material into the curriculum according to their
preferences. Outreach activities will be organised and implemented in at least two major
science centres, aiming at 19 to 25 year olds.
In order to this broad and complex topic effectively, the tools and activities will be state-
of-the-art interactive and engaging tools, making extensive use of a ‘hands-on’ approach.
Computer-based virtual activities have been found to be highly effective in engaging
young people’s interest and conveying information. Two virtual knowledge activities are
planned: a nanotechnology time machine virtual game and a virtual exhibition with on-
line experiments. Also, a face-to-face workshop will stimulate discussion and debate
on nanotechnology. In addition a video, presentation and posters will be developed to
provide a general introduction to nanotechnology and the three sub-areas. All materials
and activities will take into account age groups differences in knowledge, expression
and cognitive abilities, and decision-making capabilities. All materials developed will be
accessible, Web downloadable, modular, flexible and translated for use across different
countries. A user guide will be prepared for each tool and activity.
4.2.7.3.1.1.2 Videos, presentations, virtual exhibition

A short video, slide presentation and four posters will be developed. They will explain
the nano scale and show how nanomaterials and nanotechnologies usually alter the prop-
erties of other materials they are applied to, and this is the key to the resulting perfor-
mance and cost breakthroughs. The presentations and the posters will be designed to be
displayed in the exhibition areas with textual and graphic information about nanotechnol-
ogy, including its related risks and benefits.
A following phase will see the development of a virtual exhibition containing anima-
tions and simulations as part of the virtual experiments that show the essential aspects
of nanotechnology in the three chosen sub-areas, visualising current nanotechnology re-
search projects and applications. Simulations could allow participants to act as laboratory
researchers and investigate nanoparticles with an electronic microscope. Through the
virtual experiments the connections between the three sub-areas will be demonstrated,
as the results of an experiment from one sub-area will become the basic knowledge for
an experiment or an application from another sub-area. All simulations, animations and
virtual experiments will be developed at two levels of difficulty and abstraction according
to the two school age groups.
134
4.2.7.3.1.1.3 Time Machine game
A subsequent phase will develop a Time Machine virtual game in which participants will
‘travel in time’ while investigating applications and products. Approximately three human
needs will be presented in the game. After choosing a need the student will first travel
back to certain times in the past and see solutions for this need that were formerly used
50, 100 or more years ago, looking at materials, knowledge, scale and energy aspects of
each solution. Then the student will ‘travel’ back to the present and explore a current or
planned nanotechnology solution for the same need, again looking at materials, knowl-
edge, scale and energy aspects. Students will be able to use an ‘e-portfolio’ for recording
their ideas and impressions during their Time Machine travels. They may be asked to
compare the different solutions that they have seen. The Time Machine game will be
designed at two levels suited to the target age groups, with more complex and abstract
applications chosen for the older age group. The game could be used both in class lessons
and during the one-day programme. A Web-downloadable instruction kit will be devel-
oped for the game, to enable teachers to use it effectively during outreach.
4.2.7.3.1.1.4 ‘What is nano’ workshop

A following phase will develop a ‘What is nanotechnology?’ workshop to provide young
people with the basic concepts of nanotechnology and its applications, let them un-
derstand the nano scale, and empower them to use this knowledge for discussion and
decision-making. In order to achieve these aims two group games will be developed:
NANO memory game and a jigsaw puzzle. The games in this workshop will relate to the
three nanotech sub-areas, developed according to the differences in cognitive abilities of
the two target groups.
4.2.7.3.1.2 Promotion of dialogue
4.2.7.3.1.2.1 Nano role play, Nano-Hyde Park

A following phase will develop Nano Role Play using cards to enable small groups to be-
come engaged with complex public policy issues. It will include 10 different nano dilem-
mas from the three chosen sub-areas. Each student will choose one of the stakeholders’
roles (e.g. entrepreneur, worker, consumer, environmental protection advocate, govern-
mental regulatory agency manager, politician, religious leader, media writer). Each partici-
pant will study the dilemma and the stakeholders’ opinions through the designed cards.
Presentations about the various small group role plays will be shared with the full group
and an open dialogue will be undertaken on how to resolve dilemmas and find common
solutions. The outcome is not to find the ‘right’ solution to any dilemma but rather to gain
a better appreciation of the legitimate differing viewpoints of the various stakeholders,
which is an important element in reaching reasonable decisions. There will be an option
to present the discussions at the end of the workshop in the form of a ‘NANO Hyde Park’s
Speakers Corner’, where each group will speak aloud in front of the other groups for 5-7
minutes and present a summary of their main ideas.
135
4.2.7.3.1.2.2 Virtual dialogue facility

The nanotechnology virtual dialogue facility is designed as a platform that enhances stu-
dents’ effectiveness in contributing to discussions about ethical dilemmas and policy issues.
In this activity, 7 dilemmas will be presented using animation, flash or video techniques (like
moving comic strips). The students will be asked to offer an opinion about each dilemma
and to justify their opinion by using knowledge they have acquired. They will upload their
arguments with the explanations and justifications to a forum on the project website where
they can respond to each other. There are plans to open this forum to participants in various
countries, in order to facilitate exchanges of ideas and opinions from different places and
cultures, especially when it comes to original and intriguing opinions.
4.2.7.3.2 Activities in science centres
Outreach will promote dialogue with young adults from the 19-25 age segment, imple-
menting two participative workshops in the Grenoble Science Centre and in the Cité
des Sciences (Paris), on nanotechnology daily environment investigation and a real-sized
nano experiment, which will be complemented by the nanotechnology users’ confer-
ence. The implementation will enrol volunteers and nanotech and/or ICT scientists, one
jurist, people from the science centre, and people in charge of evaluation. The ‘do it
yourself’ activities outside these science centres will follow in each city, over one month,
enabling participants to register their feelings and experiments day by day on a dedicated
part of the project’s website, such as the Blog platform and a photo-sharing system. This
is expected to build a community-like feeling by enabling focus groups to debate on pri-
vacy, data security control and governance. It will also provide an opportunity to discuss
everyone’s experience and to assess what is at stake in the use of nanotechnology.
136
Schools and science centres work together to trigger communication and dialogue on
nanotechnology (courtesy of NANOYOU project)
4.2.7.3.2.1 Workshops FUTU and SITU on

nanotechnology daily environment
The nanotechnology daily environment begins with a ‘kick-off’ meeting that will take
place in the science centre informing participants about nanotechnology in ICT applica-
tions that: (i) are already found in our daily environment (at school, in the hospital, in the
supermarket, in cars); and (ii) are used without us knowing it (in our mobile phone, or
through credit cards or smart cards). Numbering, mapping, classifying and finally cluster-
ing them will be done in a photo-based workshop, followed up with a discussion focus
group based on the pictures taken of the chosen ICT devices. Comments and questions
will be gathered on privacy, data security, control and governance issues.
4.2.7.3.2.2 Real-sized nanotechnology experiment

A real-sized nanotechnology experiment will make young people aware of ethical, legal
and social aspects (ELSA) of nanotechnology and ICT convergence by letting them live a
real experience.
4.2.7.3.2.3 Nanotechnology users’ conference

The nanotechnology users’ conference will focus on the experience, feelings, questions
and views of non-experts who are using nanotech without knowing it. This will give way
to an in-depth discussion with experts in science and technology and as well as ethics,
law, regulation and economics, where the results of the previous workshops will also be
discussed. Starting from the real experience of young people participating in investiga-
tion and experimentation, experts and other stakeholders can react in front of a wider
137
audience of 200-300 participants, setting up a list of recommendations to gain better

information and governance of nanotechnology and ICT.
4.2.7.3.2.4 Teacher training material

Teacher training materials will be developed and tested to help them educate, motivate
and inspire young people about nanotechnology and its applications, developing course
formats containing both theoretical and experimental components that suit the various
educational approaches, student levels and course cultures of the participating schools.
European SchoolNet (EUN) will take part in outreach efforts in schools in 28 member
countries of their network (14), reaching about 400 schools in 20 Member States and/or
Associate States. The main tasks are: (i) engaging pilot schools to act as the core outreach
group; (ii) launching a multilingual outreach campaign of press releases, news articles,
Web reports to encourage participation; (iii) programming customised lesson modules;
(iv) supporting teachers in pilot and newcomer schools via online and offline tools includ-
ing nanotech user guides and teacher training kits.
The outreach campaign will be based on EUN network of partners and associated or-
ganisations (Ministries of education, schools, teacher associations, science associations,
education/science bloggers, eTwinning network), using: (i) EUN portals and websites (e-
twinning: http://www.etwinning.net Xplora: http://www.xplora.org home page: http://
www.eun.org, corporate site: http://www.europeanschoolnet.org; Insight for policymak-
ers: http://insight.eun.org); (ii) newsletters (for educators, about 30 000 subscribers; EUN,
about 25 000 subscribers; Xplora newsletter, about 3 000 subscribers; eTwinning about,
10 000 subscribers); and (iii) specific communication to Ministries of education via the
European news list of editors working in Ministries.
4.2.7.3.2.5 One-day and modular training

14
See http://www. Customised training in one-day programme or lesson modules will be made available
europeanschoolnet. online, including the teacher’s guide to organising events and a tool for teachers to up-
org/ww/en/pub/
eun/committees/ load the results, including virtual and face-to-face tools and activities for reaching 11- to
steercom.htm online. 18-year-olds. (Table 12).
138
Table 12. Overview of NANOYOU tools and activities
Activity What does Activity Target age Equipment +

Activity name type it teach? duration groups instructional kit
Nanotech time ma- Virtual Nanotech 20-45 minutes 11-13; 14-18 Computers; e-portfolio
chine Virtual game Knowledge and instructional kit
Virtual exhibition Virtual Nanotech 15-45 minutes 11-13; 14-18 Computers +

Knowledge instructional kit
Role play workshop Face-to-face ELSA of 45 minutes 11-13; 14-18 Cards and teacher
nanotech instructions
What is Nanotech? Face-to-face Nanotech 45 minutes 11-13; 14-18 Teacher instructions

Workshop Knowledge
Video To be Nanotech 15 minutes 11-13; 14-18 Video or computer

followed by Knowledge with projector +
face-to-face instructional kit
Nanotech virtual Virtual ELSA of 20-40 minutes 11-13; 14-18 Computers; e-portfolio
dialogue nanotech and instructional kit
4.2.7.3.2.6 Travelling nanotechnology ICT exhibition

A travelling ‘nanotech and ICT’ exhibition will be aimed at disseminating the results of
all previous activities: it will be built as a final step coming from all public participatory
events. This will allow for good exploitation of the achievements, as workshops and pub-
lic debates can be set up at various times during the life of the travelling exhibition, which
may continue for three to four years. It is structured on the basis of: (i) individual stories
and testimonials of ‘investigation’ and ‘real sized experiment’ workshops; (ii) assessment
of the focus groups and recommendations from the public debates; (iii) outcomes from
‘the role play workshop’ and the ‘nanotechnology virtual dialogue’; and (iv) contributions
from European experts in nanosciences, nanotechnology, information technology, law,
ethics, economics, political studies and sociology.
This exhibition is inspired by the ‘News exhibitions’ model developed by Cité des Sci-
ences, an ‘easy-to-distribute’ digital exhibition via DVD support, enabling science centres
from about 20 EU countries to showcase the exhibition in panels and language, customis-
ing texts, videos and multimedia. The exhibitions will be shown first in Grenoble Science
Centre for six months, which is expected to reach about 15 000 visitors, of which 4 000
are estimated to be 19 - to 25-year-olds. In 2011 the exhibition will be presented for three
months in the Barcelona Science Park. At the Cité des Sciences, Paris, it will be set up
close to its new ‘Innovation Gallery’ and will attract approximately 180 000 visitors, of
which 36 000 are expected to be in the 19 to 25 age group.
139
4.2.7.3.2.7 Communication toolkit

A communication toolkit, i.e. a dedicated guide for school teachers and another for sci-
ence centres will support the exhibition and the continuous dialogue between experts and
non-experts. Dissemination will follow, including press-release and presentations of results
and stands at relevant events and in journals, and exciting the interest of some national
and European networks involved in nanotechnology communication, science and society
activities, as well as in scientific culture. Exploitation will be carried through the EUN’s
extensive networks comprising school teachers, administrators and other involved parties
focused on ICT and science education. The NANOYOU Web Portal will be developed us-
ing an open source platform integrating Web 2.0 tools. It will feature an external interface
for public use with downloadable materials and an internal area for registered users.
4.2.7.4 TIMEFORNANO Project

The TIMEFORNANO project (http://www.timefornano.eu/timefornanoeu/ and http://
www.timefornano.org/) aims to present scientific phenomena that support the develop-
ment of nanotechnologies and nanosciences, as well as show their potential applications,
opportunities and risks to stimulate discussion among citizens, especially young people.
Two specific informal education products will be developed, i.e. the Nano-Kit and the
NanOLympics EU-wide contest (15) complemented by the organisation of Nano-Days in
20 EU Member and Associated States.
4.2.7.4.1 Physical and virtual educational supports
4.2.7.4.1.1 Nano-kit
This will be the basis for the realisation of events and debates aimed at society even outside
the consortium countries and designed to collect opinions and feedback from the partici-
pants. The products will use an inquiry-based learning approach, specifically developed in
science centres/ museums, where people understand by doing. The nano-kit will contain a
whole array of small exhibits, nano-objects and materials, scripts for experiments, role/team
game cards, and PC animations. It will also include tools for engaging scientists, stakehold-
ers and the public in general within a lively debate. The Web platform will be a resource
centre and an attraction for the whole community of science communicators, through its
contents (such as a cookbook and activities description, complemented by the continuous
addition of new information), its innovative tools (not only forum and newsletter, but online
community tools such as blog, podcasts, videocasts, e-museum) and online feedback col-
lection. A great added value of the project is that of ‘raising’ a growing community of peo-
ple engaged in nanotechnology communication, through the realisation of training courses
in each of the participating Science Centres (at national level) and at European level with
the support of ECSITE. These activities are intended to reach at least 450 multipliers (experts
15
TIMEFORNANO Annex working in outreach and education efforts), who will be carefully chosen among three main
I, Description of Work,
contract No, NMP- target groups: (i) explainers in science centres and PhD students in science communication;
CSA-2-233481, EC. (ii) teachers from primary schools; and (iii) teachers from high schools.
140
A web page links the description and use of the Nano-kit to the other associated
project activities, reaching a broad user community (courtesy of Brida and TIMEFOR-
NANO project)
4.2.7.4.1.2 NanOlympics EU-wide Web contest

The NanOlympics contest will be to ask participating students to provide solutions to five
‘nano dilemmas’, and propose them via expressive languages (e.g. GSM video). Awards
will be assigned at both national and EU level, thanks to the support of science centres
and schools from at least 10 countries.
The nano-dilemmas are to be framed along the following lines.
1. Health: nanomedicine and nano-food
Nanotechnology has a vital role to play in realising cost-effective diagnostic, ther-

apeutic and prevention tools. Nanoparticles can be used in diagnosis, since their
reduced dimension and high reactivity allow them to be used as miniaturised labs
to detect biological parameters directly on the body surface (the so called lab-on-a-
chip). Nanomedicine can develop novel diagnostics, theranostics and drug delivery
systems, and neuroprosthetics. But the change in chemical and structural properties
of engineered nanomaterials could lead also to toxicological effects and carcinoge-
nicity, volatility, flammability, and persistence and accumulation in cells. At present,
more toxicological research is needed.
2. Impacts on environment and energy
Nanotechnology offers new solutions through particles and filter systems that can
detect, bind and remove or inactivate pollutants within land, sea and air. Moreover,
141
in the energy field, they aim to ‘copy’ biological processes (such as photosynthesis) to
increase efficiency in the use of solar energy.
More efficient use of resources, renewable energy, and environmental monitoring

could be expected. On the other hand, little knowledge is available on the environmental
effects of nanomaterials, their life time and synergies with existing pollutants, which could
affect their route into the food chain. Additionally the very same properties, effective for
the degradation of organic pollutants, water decontamination and air purification may
become hazardous if they are active in the wrong place.
3. Safety and privacy
Ambient sensor systems can provide useful information such as pollution levels and
traffic conditions, transmitting it rapidly to portable devices. However, they can also
transmit information about individuals’ activities. As such the potential for abuse is
there and the limits on the type of information that can be gathered need to be clear-
ly defined by society through the legislative system. Privacy issues may also arise
through advances in medical diagnostics allowing doctors to screen people routinely
for the presence of genetic disease. Such technology could become crucial for early
treatment, but the patient’s right to choose should be discussed. Additionally, health
insurance companies could demand it as a prerequisite for issuing policies, raising the
question on whether and how to disclose this information.
4. Nanodivide: distribution of knowledge and wealth
As ICT, nanotechnology could have the effect of widening the divide between the
rich and the poor, or more specifically the developed and developing world. Primar-
ily this can be achieved through advances in healthcare, transport or energy supplies,
which may be more available to the wealthy. However, paradoxically it may also
come about through a decreased use of natural resources, because many of the pre-
cious metals and minerals that new nanomaterials are expected to replace are mined
in the developing world. The loss of this revenue without a strategy for its replacement
could have a negative impact on the economy and development of these countries.
5. Ethics and human enhancement: chimeras, superman and superhuman
In the long-term nanotechnology will be able to manipulate molecular and atomic

structures fully, with the ability to change human tissues and cells at the molecular
level. This will allow for new medical treatments that were previously thought impos-
sible, and will also open the door to ‘enhancing’ human body and skills. The more
controversial enhancements would probably be ‘unnatural’ enhancements of human
talent: extreme intelligence and memory capacity, significantly heightened sense of
awareness, astonishing athletic capability and strength and beauty are just a few ex-
amples: they will bring up important moral, ethical, and legal questions that human
society has not had to face yet.
142
The NanOlympic contest challenges the participants to find out science-grounded and
creative solutions to socioeconomic, legal, moral and ethical nano-dilemmas (courtesy
of Brida and TIMEFORNANO project)
143
4.2.7.4.2 Events
4.2.7.4.2.1 Nano-Days
The project will culminate with the organisation of some specific events in 20 EU coun-
tries, among which the NanoDays are featured, which are meant to be occasions for: (i)
informing/educating and engaging citizens; (ii) collecting perceptions and opinions; and
(iii) stimulating debate and dialogue.
4.2.7.4.2.2 European NanOlympics Awards

A virtual final conference in the occasion of the European NanOlympics Awards could
be organised in 2011.
144
Stimulating scientific curiosity and inspiring imaginative solutions is the challenge of
the light-hearted character ‘Super-Nano’, featuring the stories presenting the various
nano-dilemmas (courtesy of Brida and TIMEFORNANO project)
4.2.7.5 Additional projects from social sciences

Five projects launched by DG Science in Society will support the setup of a science-based
societal dialogue on nanotechnology, enabling more permanent public and policy delibera-
tion in a broad societal context. As a result, a European-wide platform could be created
in upcoming years through FP7 activities allowing for the monitoring of public and policy
debate at international, European and national levels. The major outcomes of these projects
from 2006 to 2010 will include deliberative processes, workshops, processes and citizens’
forums for boosting ELSA in nanotechnology and multi-stakeholder platforms for dialogue
(projects DEEPEN and NANOPLAT respectively), conferences for designing ELSA recom-
mendations for NGOs, industry and policymakers (project NANOCAP), workshops and
conferences to present a Governance Plan for stakeholders on responsible nanotechnology
(project FRAMING NANO).
The project DEEPEN (16) is a leading research partnership for the integrated understanding
of the ethical challenges posed by emerging nanotechnologies in real world circumstances,
and their implications on civil society, governance and scientific practice. The project is
coordinated by the Institute for Hazard and Risk Research (IHRR) at Durham University. The
project team includes researchers based at Darmstadt University of Technology (Germany),
the Centre for Social Studies at the University of Coimbra (Portugal), and the University of
Twente (Netherlands). This project will focus specifically on two areas of nanotechnology
development: the development of nano-sensors, and their potential to become integrated
within electronic consumer goods, cars, medical devices, security and surveillance systems,
pollution monitoring devices and so on; and the field of nanobiotechnology, and its promise
of investigating the machinery of life. Both chosen domains are representative of two distinct
See http://www.
16
approaches to nanotechnology, and as areas of intense innovation activity they are seen as geography.dur.ac.uk/
being most likely to engender ethical concern. Deepening ethical understanding of nano- Projects/Default.
aspx?alias=www.
technologies, mapping the relationships between ethical and normative commitments and geography.dur.ac.uk/
increasing ethical reflection will lead to organising relevant deliberative forums for citizens, projects/deepen online.
145
experts and decision-makers to identify recommendations for boosting ethical reflection on

nanoscience and associated governance processes. Deliberative workshops (UK, Portugal,
May 2009), Festival of Social Science (Durham, UK, November 2008), conferences and
operational meetings (UK, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium 2006-2008) have been
the main outcomes from 2006 to 2009.
The project NANOCAP (17), Nanotechnology Capacity Building NGOs, is a three-year proj-
ect spanning between 2006 and 2009 to deepen the understanding of environmental, oc-
cupational health and safety risks and ethical aspects of nanotechnology. It is a consortium
of five environmental NGOs, five trade unions and five universities that held a series of
focused working conferences in which a structured enhancement of stakeholder capaci-
ties was planned. The universities took care of the scientific input for the conferences. NGOs
and trade unions developed their positions after discussions with their members. A portfolio
on ethical issues and a position concerning ‘responsible nanotechnology’ was prepared and
actively disseminated. This enabled a structured discussion between environmental NGOs,
trade unions, academic researchers and other stakeholders at European level. This process
improved the understanding of nanotechnologies by participants, formulating positions
within their actual policy context supported by scientific inputs. As a result, five European
NGOs adopted a position on the responsible development of nanotechnology and the Eu-
ropean Trade Union Confederation adopted a resolution representing 60 million workers in
Europe. This lead to recommendations on how to stimulate industrial and academic RTD
performers to focus on source reduction of manufactured nano-particles and to make risk
assessment an important dimension in their work. The project is also developing recom-
mendations to enable public authorities to address the health, safety and environmental risk
issues related to the rapid introduction of nanotechnology into society.
The FP7 project NANOPLAT (18) aims at creating a deliberative forum for nanotechnologies-
based consumer products and evaluates various instruments which have been used for as-
sessing the societal dimension of nanotechnologies across Europe. As of August 2008, the
nanotechnology product inventory had grown by nearly 279% (from 212 to 803 products)
since it was released in March 2006. Personal care, clothing and cosmetics products top the
inventory at 153, 126 and 115 products respectively.
The positive visions for nano-sciences and nano-technology are apparently without limits.
This is especially the case within medicine and bio-nanotechnology, but similar visions
are also found for energy, ICT and materials for the consumer industry. According to these
visions nanotechnology will have a qualitative innovative influence on the production pro-
cesses, energy and material use, information and communication systems and – after a
while – a substantial influence on the everyday life of individual consumers and house-
holds. Cheaper, stronger and lighter products could be obtained: in contrast to the previous

17
See http://www.
nanocap.eu/ history of technology, nanotechnology might combine economic growth with a reduced
Flex/Site/Page. consumption of materials.
aspx?PageID=&Lang
online.
18
See http://www. At the same time, scepticism grows along two lines, associated with (i) the lack of knowledge
nanoplat.org/ online. regarding both environmental and health risks of the new nanotechnology materials, (ii) fun-
146
damental questions about the relationship between man and nature, raising ethical, political
and even religious dilemmas.
So deliberative processes will be set up on human and environmental safety, ethical and
moral dilemmas, and perceptions of risks and responsibilities as revealed through focus on
the market interfaces across the value chain of goods and services. This will be important for
the development of deliberative democracy in Europe, to stimulate the deliberative dialogue
and give scientific support to the stakeholders who are responsible for this dialogue. Evalu-
ating selected deliberative processes in Europe and identifying the needs of stakeholders
(focusing on producers, consumers, NGOs and society) will make sure that a deliberative
and science-based platform for the dialogue on nanotechnology between stakeholders in
Europe and beyond is developed.
From 2008 until 2010 the FP7 project FRAMING NANO (19) will be aiming to develop a
multi-stakeholder platform for dialogue on regulation promoting responsible nanotechnol-
ogy. National workshops organised in the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands,
Switzerland and the UK allowed presenting a Governance Plan covering the requirements
for a safe development of nanotechnology, so an international multi-stakeholder dialogue
is already at work. Additionally, best practices and cross-links and contacts between na-
tional activities are being developed. Then, an international workshop (Brussels, February
2009) presented the supporting Delphi studies, debates on critical issues and facilitate
cross-contacts, while a final conference (Italy, 2010) will be the meeting ground to discuss
stakeholders’ respective positions and expectations on the development of responsible
nanotechnology. This will be the time to aim for consensus before presenting the final
proposal for a Governance Plan on responsible nanotechnology.
Finally, from 2009 until 2011 the FP7 project MACOSPOL (20) will be aiming to experiment
and develop new tools for exploring and representing public debates on scientific and tech-
nological issues. This project is a joint research enterprise that gathers science, technology
and society experts across Europe. Its goal is to devise a collaborative platform to help stu-
dents, professionals and citizens to map out scientific and technical controversies. Technical
democracy requires spaces and instruments to facilitate public involvement in technological
and scientific issues. Such democratic equipment is yet to be assembled, even though much
research has been done to give it a theoretical shape. At the same time, digital innovations
are providing an increasing number of new instruments and forums that can be used to
promote public participation. Therefore, the project has been set up to facilitate the alliance
between these two developments, by making sure that the best research on science, tech-
nology and society is twinned with the best research on Web-based tools. The goal of the
Macospol project is to assemble a Web-based platform to aid the exploration and mapping
of scientific controversies. This will be reached through the involvement of 8 partner teams
and different lines of research represented by 8 Work Packages. First, the project aims to col-
lect tools, survey, test and evaluate the massive amount of techniques, procedures, software
19
See http://www.
and sites available on the Web. The second step focuses on delivering two Internet-based framingnano.eu/ online.
mappings of controversies about potential risks involving the use of food supplements and 20
See http://www.
nanoscale materials. Then interactive tutorials will be rolled out to help users to get familiar macospol.eu/ online.
147
with the tools for analysing controversies and subsequently overcome the compatibility is-
sues. This will lead to designing the space of controversies through different kinds of work
(such as case studies and comparisons between the collected tools, for instance) which will
open the way to test the political relevance of the platform as a ‘quasi parliament’ capable of
hosting and shaping the most topical debates about science and technology.
4.2.8 Workshop on collaborations

between EC projects
communicating nanotechnology
A dedicated workshop was set up during EuronanoForum2009 to identify synergies,
cross-fertilisation and collaboration between the most relevant projects on communicat-
ing nanotechnology (Table 13).
Table 13. Collaboration between EC projects

on communicating nanotechnology
From/
to NANOTV NANOYOU TIME4NANO NANOTOTOUCH
- Videos in science centres Videos in sciences centers Videos in sciences centers

TIME4NANO: TIME4NANO: NANOTOTOUCH
in video presentations
•• in nanokit
••
NANOTV
in virtual games & vir-

•• in NanOlympics
••
tual dialogue tools
As part of NanoDays
••
in travelling exhibition
•• materials
in teachers’ training
••
1st set three Videos

•• synchronise dilemmas
•• NANOYOU schools
••
received in July 09, for attend Open-Labs @
NANOYOU schools in
••
feedback September 09 Live-Areas
NANOYOU
NanOlympics
2nd Set Videos in DE-
•• NANOYOU portal
••
NANOYOU teachers
••
cember 09, for feedback provides their Live
participate in NanoDays
March 2010 Coverage and discus-
& training TIME4NANO
sion platform between
Filming 4 Videos nano-
••
scientist and students
learning in January 2010

•• Nanokits offered as tool - TIME4NANO sciences
••
received in July 09, for NANOYOU centers attend Open-
TIME4NANO
feedback September 09 Labs & Live-Areas

Synchronise dilemmas
••
•• Scientist NANOTOUCH
••
TIME4NANO network
••
cember 09, for feedback access NanOlympics
distributes NANOYOU’s
March 2010 results
workshop/exhibition
Filming Videos nano-
•• (CCSTI Grenoble) TIME4NANO portal &
••
learning January 2010 NANOYOU+NANOTV
148
From/
to NANOTV NANOYOU TIME4NANO NANOTOTOUCH

•• scientist NANOTOT-
•• NANOTOTOUCH
•• -
received in July 09, for OUCH visit NANOYOU provides Open-Labs &
NANOTOTOUCH
feedback September 09 schools Live-Areas for their Live

Coverage
•• NANOTOTOUCH
••
cember 09, for feedback provides Open-Labs &
March 2010 Live-Areas for their Live
Coverage and scientist
Filming 4 Videos nano-
••
for discussion with
learning in January 2010
students
4.2.9 NanoIn Life DVD movie

This video is delivering a set of ‘Supporting Stories’ ready for media use, featuring some of
the very best nanotechnology research and development results. It was officially present-
ed at the EuroNanoForum2009 conference in Prague, 2-5 June 2009 (see Section 5.1.1).
These supporting stories are the DVD’s backbone, as told by Nobel Prize Professor Harry
Kroto, who features here both as an excellent scientist and an enthusiastic communicator.
The stories are spaced throughout the audiovisual production in a sequence resembling a
travel of a young girl, Alice, through the real world of nanotechnology, and offering excit-
ing snapshots of the future. A complex story is woven around the main present and future
headlines of nanotechnology research and development; indeed, each chapter contains
interviews with nanotechnology scientists and researchers explaining these findings.
Alice is meant to represent the future of EU citizens here. There is plenty of compelling
story angles to portray the main possible applications of nanotechnology. The actors of
these stories are both the creators of nanotechnology research and development and the
people who could benefit from it: they are represented together as contributing to build
a more desirable European society.
NanoInLife is the EC’s third video addressing the general public, so it can be regarded
as the latest chapter of a trilogy built on two previous DVDs produced over the past
four years. The first was called: Nano: The Next Dimension and was addressing young
audiences while the second, called Nanotechnology, targeted broader audiences with a
general interest in science and technology. But a different editorial vision is proposed this
time. NanoInLife’s approach is based on telling stories on research results through scien-
tists’ life and experience: indeed, it’s about scientific facts through stories, and stories
through real people, which should ultimately be the answer to a basic, very simple ques-
tion: what should be filmed and communicated about nanotechnology?
This is why this DVD is also an example of the appropriate communication criteria that
should lead to the identification of projects, facts and people with potential audiovisual
media appeal.
149
Nobel Prize Harry Kroto and little Alice in the nano-world feature this last chapter of
the EC video trilogy on nanotechnology
4.2.10 EuroNanoMedicine
This conference was jointly organised by the three NMP FP6 Integrated Projects ‘Nano-
BioPharmaceutics’, ‘NanoEar’ and ‘MediTrans’, as part of their dissemination activities. It
was held at the end of September 2009 in Bled, Slovenia. It was also supported by the
ETP Nanomedicine and Dechema, which took care of the logistics aspects. Improving
the synergy between the three Integrated Projects and other EC-funded projects in the
field of Nanomedicine was of the essence here. The conference, opened by Commis-
sioner Potocnik, covered the hottest range of nanomedicine and therapeutic issues such
as overcoming biological barriers, medical diagnostics and sensor devices, regenerative
medicine, nanopharmaceuticals for gene delivery, and safety aspects of nanomaterials
contained in medical applications. The audience attracted about 250 participants (21).
4.2.11 Annual Meeting of the

Controlled Release Society
This was an important international event (22) for the pharmaceutical sector with an ex-
pected attendance of about 1800 participants, and took place between 18 and 22 July
2009 in Copenhagen. During the conference the EC gave a plenary presentation about
Nanomedicine research in the Seventh Framework Programme. This conference gave full
visibility to the EC’s full commitment to nanotechnology and nanomedicine in FP7, the
ETP Nanomedicine, calls for proposals and other ongoing activities.
4.2.12 Workshop on converging

technologies and impacts on society
This forthcoming, dedicated workshop on public engagement on nanotechnology, which
is expected to be held from April 2010 onwards, has already sparked a flurry of discussion
21
See associated web around the key issues of converging technologies and their impacts on the whole of society.
pages online (http://
events.dechema.de/
This is particularly important as converging technologies are the cutting edge of nanotech-
euronanomedicine2009. nologies, combining nano-bio-info-cognitive approaches, leading to a brand new neuro-
html; http://www. prosthetics industry. Some of the top experts in the field of industry, media, NGOs and
nanobiopharmaceutics.
org/; http://www. investors will share success, best practices and challenging stories, with a view to taking
nanoear.org/; http:// part in consensus-making to foster sustainable design and use of converging technologies.
www.meditrans-ip.net/).
22
See http://www.
controlledrelease.org/ The leading theme of the converging technologies workshop will focus on ‘converging
meeting/ online. humanities, education, science & technology’ to establish an innovative, open, borderless
150
think-tank among the best scientists and scholars, joining all available professional forces
while inspiring and educating the young scientists as the future science leaders.
This vision wants to be a meeting place for outstanding professionals active in all fields
of science, such as exact science, humanities, medical and life sciences, engineering. In
the forum they will try to bridge the gap between their respective disciplines and bring
together their know-how, thoughts, interests, research tools, barriers and dreams.
The workshop will create the setting for fruitful exchanges among some of the world’s
best scientists and leaders from both government and private industry. It aims to bringing
about a creative and open-minded approach to science and give a big boost collaborative
research. Last but not least, it will provide a forum for young scientists, too. Art-oriented
people will also be encouraged to take up a leading role in science, which is a very novel
approach for both artists and scientists. The workshop will be (i) surveying stakeholders’
position, values, concerns and expectations, communication models, cultural specifici-
ties, (ii) developing new models and tools for communicating, dialogue and engagement,
(iii) ensuring access and engagement on ethical, social and legal dimensions of converg-
ing technologies and (iv) shaping a new choice-making process with stakeholders, by
exchanging scientific cultures and precious foresight.
4.2.13 Second Implementation

Report on Nanotechnology
The Commission expects to publish the second and last report on the implementation of its
Nanotechnology Action Plan 2005-2009 by September 2009 (the first report was published
in September 2007). The report will cover progress in all areas of the Action Plan, namely
research, infrastructures, training, industrial innovation, societal issues, safety and regulation,
international cooperation, and coordination of activities. Investment considerations in nano-
technology research will feature among the highlights of the report, with stronger focus on
applications, industrial innovation and regulatory appropriateness. This ensures good prog-
ress in understanding potential risks and reviewing applicable legislation within a more en-
gaging societal and international framework. At the same time, the report will identify areas
where further work is needed to promote faster commercialisation of research output safely.
4.2.14 Second EC Action Plan on

Nanotechnology (2010-2014)
Towards the end of the period covered by the present Nanotechnology Action Plan, a new
Action Plan, covering the time span 2010-2014, is expected to be considered by the Com-
mission. This new, very important document will build upon the progress made in the EU
so far and will propose new actions. It is expected to be published after February 2010.
151
4.2.15 EC Communication Roadmap

on Nanotechnology (2009-2011)
This document will cover the final period of the present Nanotechnology Action Plan and
the beginning of the new Action Plan for 2010-2014. It will bridge the two policy docu-
ments on communication outreach and dialogue on nanotechnology, and is expected to
be e-published via all relevant EC web pages and cross-links, National Contact Points and
project networks.
4.2.16 Clustering and Mapping EC

projects on Nanotechnology
This activity involves clustering and presenting in both publication and Web mapping for-
mats most relevant nanotechnology research projects funded under FP6 and FP7. The re-
sulting publication is expected by early 2010, while the associated mapping is likely to be
published from mid 2010. About 150 projects will be presented in clusters, e.g. agrifood,
electronics and Ict, industrial applications, nanomedicine (sub-divided in drug delivery,
diagnostics and regenerative medicine), security, textiles, outreach, Ethical-Legal-Social
Aspects (ELSA), Environmental and Human Safety (EHS), and Coordination and Support
Actions (CSA). The project’s performance will be assessed according to the following cri-
teria: scientific challenge, technological achievements, achieved or expected prototypes,
impacts on society, industrial relevance and impact, as well as impact on media. It will
describe and represent in an eye-catching way the most relevant EC-funded nanotechnol-
ogy projects according to their geographical, thematic and performance distribution.
4.2.17 European platform on Nano

Outreach and DialoguE - NODE
EC research is investing yearly EUR 600 million on Nanotechnology, but in comparison
very few reports are produced that bring these results to the attention of the public. Excel-
lent results are there, but they have not been communicated yet. Objectivity, rather than
subjectivity, is the issue in this project, aiming at developing an unambiguous Science-
Technology-Social platform supporting a transparent and continuous dialogue exercise.
The outcome of all this communication work would feed back to researchers so as to
increase their appreciation of what their work really means to the public.
A dedicated Internet platform for continuous dialogue with society will be put in place,
possibly by 2011. The idea is to establish an Observatory for Nano-dialogue which
152
continuously monitors consumer opinion about nanotechnologies, as market surveys to
understand trends in public opinion usually do.
This work will be supported by the socioeconomic research carried out by the projects
mentioned in Section 4.2.7.5; these have been developing the tools to give the people the
opportunity to get involved and express their opinion about a message or a product about
nanotechnology. These tools range from systems mapping controversy to others for cap-
turing and analysing random remarks. These tools will allow a technical democracy plat-
form to be put in place: public opinion will be monitored on a continuous basis through
Web-based measures that could be picked up by other media. In fact, communication
activities previously developed (Sections 4.2.7.1 to 4.2.7.4, 4.2.8, 4.2.9) and development
of adequate tools for dialogue (Sections 4.2.7.1 to 4.2.7.4, 4.2.3 and 4.2.7.5) will make the
platform one of the most appropriate means to monitor what people really think about
nanotechnologies and promote evidence-based dialogue.
Clearly, this is a media resource too. The idea is to shape the correct cognitive tools to moni-
tor and capture public opinion, structure it, correlate it and transfer it into messages that poli-
cymakers would use for more effective policymaking. Regular conferences do not exhibit a
trend, while on the Web it would be possible to monitor how opinions change, according to
which socioeconomic group and geographic part of Europe. Results from honest, unbiased
research will be made available not only to researchers or industries, but also to the whole
of society (e.g. NGOs, media, consumers, citizens) in a way they can understand, to enable
continuous monitoring of public opinion and feedback, to get the feel of what people really
think. In this way, if something inappropriate is being done, prompt corrections are possible.
For instance, if people are clearly favourable to areas of nanotechnology other than in
their food, research policy will have to take heed of such an opinion. In addition, if some-
thing very controversial comes up, a consultation from a formal point of view could be
set up in this respect.
Public funded research requires the public to be always consulted, and the public would
respond with informed feedback. In summary, initiating the dialogue and outreach and
keeping them balanced, at the same level as the research, is the key issue.
This platform, whose target will be continuous dialogue with everybody, in 2011, would
be based on already developed tools that monitor’s public opinion, where Internet and
online media will be mainstream. The European Commission will kick-start the platform,
but then the Member States will have to be involved, to include associations in each
Member State also as a part of the system.
Member States will have their own monitoring posts and conduct continuous surveys of
public opinion. The questions may not be identical for everybody: local trend differences
should be considered, though they will not change the initial architecture and aims. Clear-
ly, the European Commission will initiate this technical-democracy based online dialogue
but then it will belong to the public, hopefully supported by Member States.
153
FORUM OF EC COMMUNICATION
PROJECT COODINATORS
Interview with Mario Martinoli
Mario Martinoli,
Director of iCons Srl,
Coordinator of NANOTV project
‘It’s about a new multimedia model with wide coverage’
Q. What is the main novelty of NANOTV’s communication model, also considering that
you are a free content provider?
A. It’s a multi-media model with uniquely wide coverage. We succeeded in placing our-
selves among the mainstream broadcasting of European TV networks like an independent
agency, reaching newsrooms and science programmes through Euronews, Eurovision and
our own contacts. Providing free content Video News Releases is a rather uncommon fea-
ture in broadcasting, but this is tied to the very identity of our platform, http://www.youris.
com, which represents the other half of our model and which we recently turned into an
online science magazine with our own original, in-depth feature articles and interviews.
As high quality content providers, we take the initiative to reach broadcasters with our
VNRs and we have found this model works particularly well in increasing our outreach to
new Member States, for instance. Our initial approach had been born out of the ambition
to bring EC-funded European science research achievements into visual media, which we
did for almost 10 years in many other research domains. But with NANOTV we are taking
a step forward, because we want to focus on nanotechnology’s major issues and on their
ethical, legal and social implications in a balanced way.
Q. So the rather rare feature of your model is that you can reach a wider audience by fit-
ting your free videos into news programmes.
A. Exactly. It’s about reaching out to the general public. Since we provide high added
value broadcasts always for free, many public service national TV networks plus a few
national pay-tv channels use them on their news programmes or science magazines. Our
balanced approach to science issues has always made sure that we are given access to the
main TV gateways, and the spread of our distribution gives us this wide coverage which
is the most innovative aspect of our model. Any of our Youris VNRs generates 7 or 8 mil-
lion viewers on Euronews only, but thanks to our distribution we get to dozens of millions
of viewers for each VNR altogether. We have good contacts even outside Europe. There
are a couple of US satellite networks which request our VNRs regularly, and I know our
videos have been downloaded by TV channels as far as Venezuela and Vietnam. All in
all, we reach out to over 40 countries.
154
Q. How is your video material and voiceover used by TV networks?
A. We send them a 3-4 minute ‘teaser’ with a voiceover in English, which is our own fin-
ished short narrative, plus the so-called B-rolls, meaning 12-minute long selected footage
without any voiceover. It’s then up to the TV networks to decide how to edit the footage,
but it has to be said that our messages are always clear in either our teasers or B-rolls.
In the case of NANOTV, we will also go beyond the research projects with our original
features and articles about the bigger nano debate out there. Obviously the TVs will also
be able to make use of this written material at the same time as our VNRs.
Q. Is your approach to nanotechnology communication aiming to inform the public at the

same time as the research and developments come along?
A. This is our ambition. Nanotechnology is evolving very rapidly and cannot be com-
pared to other, more stable and slow-developing technologies. It is among us already in
some cosmetics, water filtration systems and biomedical sensors, but most of us are not
aware of this yet. We want to keep the pace with nano discoveries just as they happen. I
also feel that nanotechnology is innovative to such an extent, that it is likely to produce
many spin-offs rapidly. We have also found out that, although we think globally, we often
resonate with networks on a local level as well. In the past, for instance, our videos about
water filtration were also downloaded by some TV channels in North Africa.
Q. European research success stories about nanotechnology will also become the ‘pegs’
on to which to attach a wider debate about nano applications and implications.
A. We can already say that one of the strong clusters of our editorial plan will be about
nanomedicine, but we have also identified several cross-over topics such as nanoparticles
and bio-mimicry. We are sure we are going to identify a series of very interesting nano sto-
ries, covering different points of view about S&T and the societal, ethical and legal aspects
of nano in a balanced way. These stories also confront us with the fact that some of these
developments are already causing so many hopes and expectations. The dialogue is going
to start from our VNRs and written articles, which will be distributed to the TVs and the
European printed and online press. It is going to take its initial shape on http://www.youris.
com in the form of an exchange of opinions between a nano-scientist who will be chosen
every month to answer selected questions by our audience on each video-related issue.
Q. Which direction would you like your communication model to take after 2011?
A. We have been in science communication since 1998 and our capacity for success has
always depended on us having a dynamic model. So, from the end of 2009 we are also
going to integrate Web 2.0 into our distribution model in order to widen our outreach
beyond TV. So far it was generally assumed that people would watch a programme on TV
first and go back to the Web to learn more later. We want to try and reverse this model
now, by using Twitter and Facebook to inform people that on a certain date and time they
can turn on their TV to watch one of our VNRs. Turning the interaction between Web and
155
TV around does look like a highly innovative communication model to me now. This way,
the Web audience would migrate towards TV and back to the Web, of course, to debate
the issues and go deeper. We would really like to try and do this through http://www.
youris.com, perhaps by setting up cooperation with other European online newspapers
as well, which would establish a new interactive model.
Interview with Ulrich Kernbach

Ulrich Kernbach,
Director of International Cooperation at the
Deutsches Museum in Munich,
Coordinator of NANOTOTOUCH project
‘Merging communication and research is the formula

for Open Nano Labs’
Q. What were the main reasons behind your choice of setting up permanent Open Nano
Labs and Nano Researcher Live Areas?
A. The European Science museums are a huge community under the roof of Ecsite, to-
gether with smaller institutions such as Science Centres. Museums normally have a col-
lection, whereas science centres tend to deal more with the interactive part and hands-on
exhibits. In order to introduce a new form of nano-communication, we aimed to gather
as many partners as we could. So we brought together institutions such as the Deutsches
Museum in Munich, the Museo Nationale della Scienza e della Tecnologia Leonardo da
Vinci in Milan and the Universeum in Gothenburg, where we can have fully equipped
and working Nano Labs because the settings allow for that, with institutions such as the
AHHAA Science Centre in Tartu, the Città della Scienza in Naples and Technopolis in
Mechelen, whose Nano Researcher Live areas will engage University researchers into
public nano-debates and present their work or part of their equipment to the visitors.
As far as the Nano-Labs go, they are provided by the local Universities, and indeed one of
the strong points of the project is this quite unique and close collaboration with the aca-
demic world. We have learnt from experience we need to have between one and three
researchers permanently on site carrying out their work but also communicating with the
visitors about what they are doing. The researchers may be local PhD students and they
usually rotate every three months or so. We are convinced this will have an effect on
further collaboration with Universities and could open up a new educational approach to
develop together in the future. We will surely learn from each other.
156
Q. Could you name an experiment that can be carried out in the Open Nano Lab, which
does not have to be under controlled conditions?
A. For public safety reasons, you could not have, for instance, a fully working, open
chemistry lab inside a museum. But with nanotechnology, you can certainly have, for
example, a scanning tunnelling microscope, which is a wonderful tool posing no safety
problems whatsoever in such a setting.
Q. How did you set out to merge communication and research?
A. In Munich we have just a low glass pane separating the research area from the public. The
principle is that people can really be in touch with the researchers. In the same environment
we will have a small exhibition of nano products, some basic information about nanotechnol-
ogy, films on the screen by NANOTV and other projects, and demonstrations on a regular ba-
sis such as experiments with ferromagnetic pigments, nanoparticles and nanodust. Of course
the real face-to-face dialogue can start there, which is the most important part of the whole
project. The questions can range from ‘How did you choose a career in nano-science?’ to
‘What are the ethical and societal implications of your work?’, to health and safety aspects.
You can imagine a young scientist at the end of his studies talking to visitors under 25 years of
age, which represent the bulk of our science museum public. A huge amount of young visitors
will embrace this very powerful peer-to-peer communication tool, as they will be talking to
people who are almost their age. Of course these young researchers, who have been trained
in communication through our workshops, can act as role models for youngsters who are de-
ciding which career to choose. Among the outcomes of the project there will be a handbook
for researchers containing recommendations on how to develop a nano lab, which will be
based on such workshops. Our researchers need to be able to answer all questions, and be
open about them. Our researcher Paul Hix met one couple who questioned him for a whole
afternoon and came back the next morning with some more queries.
Q. What impact do you expect your project will have on EU society and
communication?
A. First, we expect a change inside the research community, as it will find out that com-
munication is part of its research identity. The research community should be able to
make society aware of what it is accomplishing, in order to inform people about the way
it is using taxpayers’ money. Not every researcher has to be a perfect communicator, but
it’s absolutely necessary to find people that are willing to do it, as it’s very important to
overcome the gap between the academic world and society. The other effect, as I said, is
that this new model can have a strong effect on young people’s career choices: it could
give them an idea of what is possible and introduce researchers as role models. We know
Europe does not have enough young scientists and researchers, and nano will be one of
the key technologies to come, so this is about the future. I hope this very helpful approach
by the EC’s Nano and Converging Technologies Unit, which listened to players in the field
before structuring calls on nanotechnology communication, will go on, as it maintains a
direct link between research and communication.
157
Q. How do you see the future of your nano communication activities after 2011?
A. Here at the Deutsches Museum we will open a huge exhibition of more than 2,500
square meters for new technologies. We will move the NanoLab, which we have had over
the last 3 years, to the museum and we will have a huge exhibition about nanotechnology,
which will be the most important part of this initiative. We are currently involved in other
projects co-funded by the EC, the NanoMedRoundTable whose outcome will be a set of
recommendations to support decision making regarding nanomedical innovations. We
will use the discussion coming out of this in one way or the other for our exhibition. And
we are, of course, part of the TimeForNano project. Finally, here at the Deutsches Muse-
um we have a huge research programme in the field of communicating nanotechnology.
Due to our many initiatives in this respect, after 2011 we hope we will also become the
platform for communication outreach of nanotechnology at a national level.
Interview with Yoel Rothschild

Yoel Rothschild,
Director of Moshinsky R&D Center, ORT Israel,
Coordinator of NANOYOU project
‘Involving students from at least 20 countries is going to have

a ripple effect’
Q. You have over 400 European schools on board of your educational project, which
is a very broad target. Which characteristic of NanoYou do you regard as the most
important?
A. The aspect that makes us unique is that we are targeting school students and interact-
ing with them directly. We are doing this, of course, through an excellent partner, the Eu-
ropean Schoolnet or EUN, which is going to appoint the coordinators in our pilot schools.
The 11-18 age group will be addressed through involvement in middle and high schools
and the 18-25 age group through science centres throughout Europe. We aim to train sci-
ence teachers in at least 15-20 EU countries. Our educational package will be transferred
to the students via a short school programme or a one-day festival on nanotechnology.
The issues will include not just the technological developments but also an assessment
of the benefits and potential risks and ELSA issues. The whole exercise will involve more
than 25,000 students. One of our aims is to encourage the next generation of nanotech-
nology scientists and engineers.
158
Q. This will allow you to spread your network by branching out considerably. How are the
teachers going to report back to you?
A. The challenge of NanoYou is that no teachers are specially trained to teach nano. So we
are involving experienced science teachers, well versed in classical sciences and modern
areas like biotechnology and so on, who are able understand the language of nanoscience
and nanotechnology. Since nanotechnology is so complicated, we are collecting good
stories and scientific case studies about nano innovation, such as energy, medicine and
so on, and we are including them in a kit of basic knowledge about nano that has been
put together for us by two of our partners, the Nanoscience Centre of the University of
Cambridge and the Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Center at the University of Aarhus in
Denmark. In our package there are plenty of dialogue instruments the students can use,
from the NanoTimeMachine to other virtual games, such as role play and card games.
Our aim is to inform and engage the students. We should get the report from the teachers
through the pilot school coordinator and through student work which will be placed on
the project’s Web portal.
Q. What is your own approach to nanotechnology communication?
A. Very few young people know what nanotechnology really means. We want them to
be prepared to make their own decision about the benefits and risks of tnano innovations
to come, and understand that nanotechnology is one of the real future challenges for the
whole of society and a huge area for science and technology innovation. Interest and
knowledge are likely to snowball as a group of interested schoolchildren gradually builds
up. We want to contribute and build the next generation of nanotechnology scientists.
Q. Could you tell me more about your virtual activities, such as the Nano Time Machine
game?
A. Nanotechnology is a very young area of science, and we want to highlight its progress
and its place as a station on an ideal route along the history of science. The Nano Time
Machine is a route with a lot of stops along it. This, along with our other activities such as
the virtual exhibition, will be available on Internet, in science centres and in the schools.
We are lucky there are three parallel projects with a lot of cross-fertilisation opportunities,
such as NanoTV, TimeForNano and NanoToTouch, so we can use a lot of their materials
too. We also hope to produce a virtual simulation of a nano laboratory, which is quite
sophisticated, and all the more necessary since in schools you cannot have real ones
because of the high cost, and also for health and safety reasons.
Q. Your Nano Speakers’ Corner, with 10 different chosen nano-dilemmas, almost resem-
bles theatre role play.
A. We want all our dialogue to be based on real scientific, sound knowledge. This is the
way we would like to discuss the benefits and risks of nano innovations. Take the example
of nano-socks for sportswear: by introducing nanoparticles into the fabric they would not
159
smell anymore. But nobody understands at the moment if there could be some potential
risks of nanoparticles going through the skin slowly, or if the risk can be dealt with. We
would like students to take up such an issue and have a real debate about it, together with
scientists, people from the industry, the health and safety sector, consumers’ organisa-
tions, or the academic world. It would be a proper panel with real people. We are giving
the schools quite flexible guidelines, with teachers having the opportunity of taking up a
role, like actors. You can certainly call it nano-theatre. It will take place in classes, where
it will be more organised. It is really an introductory project to get young people involved
in nano and initiate the first stage of dialogue and discussion about it. It doesn’t really mat-
ter what comes first, whether the dilemmas or the basic knowledge, because a good story
will provide good discussion and good learning anyway. We need to be clever in finding
a way to create a good attitude to talk about nano.
Q. And you want to leave the debate quite open, and take care of all the viewpoints.
A. Absolutely. We are now being given the opportunity to be linked to many other
European organisations and projects. For instance, there is an excellent group in Cork,
Ireland, working on neuronano. We could give them access to our schools and have
that aspect debated by the NanoYou students. On the Internet, as well, we are being
accessed by lots of science centres and organisations around Europe that would like to
support our activities.
Q. So your NanoSpeakersCorner is the right place to do it.
A. That’s right. It is just the perfect chance for all these people to come and introduce
nano issues and challenges to the schools. We also want to get back to proper face-to-
face interaction.
Q. What do you think your added value to European society and communication is going
to be?
A. I think the most important thing is that we are going into schools to involve 25,000
students who are, in turn, going to talk to their parents and friends as well. Many young
people will start thinking about developing a career in nanotechnology and many teach-
ers are going to be exposed to nanotechnology. We are sure the impact across Europe will
be tremendous. It’s going to have a ripple effect.
Q. How do you see the future of your activities after 2011?
A. If there is a second stage, we would like to develop a full curriculum subject in nano-
technology: to design the textbooks and the experiments. I envisage we could involve
the students from Grade 8 onwards, teenagers around 13-14 years of age. In this case the
link to universities and the industry should be very strong. Also, there should be a pan-
European schoolteacher training college for nanotechnology education.
160
Interview with Luigi Amodio
Luigi Amodio,
Director General of Idis-Città della Scienza Foundation in Naples,
Coordinator of TIMEFORNANO and NANODIALOGUE projects
‘Visual NanOlympics are a creative way

to tackle nano-dilemmas’
Q. You have devised the NanOlympics, nano-kit and nano-days to show the potential ap-
plications of nanotechnology. Which educational needs do these activities respond to?
A. Against the background of what is being done in Europe and abroad in communica-
tion technologies, there are two problems to be solved: the first is about basic knowl-
edge of nano; the second lies in popular imagination, where nanotechnologies have
somehow become threatening even before reaching a widespread application level,
as you will remember from Michael Crichton’s novel Prey which configures a series of
catastrophic scenarios.
The solution to the first problem is to inform people, the young generation in particular,
by introducing them to non-banal concepts of quantum physics, chemistry and the study
of matter. The other problem can be tackled by opening a mechanism of dialogue with
people immediately, so they can understand how acceptable nanotechnologies may be
to them.
The starting point for us, ever since the Nanodialogue project, is to elicit a reaction even
before these technologies enter everyone’s lives to such a degree that you won’t be able to
do anything else but accept them. It’s surely fair that the discussion about publicly funded
research is shared by as many people as possible. So we defined a formula to generate a
discussion about possible scenarios, which was translated into an exhibition and related
events that toured a number of museums taking part in that first project between 2005
and 2007.
Now with TimeForNano we have started looking at targeting young people mainly be-
tween the ages of 10 and 19, although everybody is welcome, in a more direct way on
two fronts. We shall start from schools, to which we will deliver our nano-kit, containing
an array of real and virtual activity tools; the other front is the Web, with the NanOlym-
pics first of all, a European competition that will stimulate a creative debate about 5 nano-
dilemmas. Not by chance we have Brida, a Slovenian society of artistic productions, as
a partner for designing the interactive and Web part of the project. The results should be
161
really exciting. On nano-days, which will be like small science festivals, we would very
much like to involve the media as well.
Q. How will the nano-scripts, the nano-exhibits and the card games in the kit keep young-
sters’ creativity flowing?
A. We will simulate some nanotubes or other nanostructure properties at a macro level.

Most probably we will also include some real samples of nanotechnology-containing
materials, such as water-repellent textiles, or anti-mist Plexiglas. For card games we have
chosen a kind of well-tested role play that will allow youngsters to receive more struc-
tured information (for instance, about nano-investments across different countries and
the different application areas of nano) and to take a stand about controversial matters.
The idea is to provide schools with a series of materials and activities similar to those we
use in museums. The nano-kit will be translated into the different languages of the nine
European countries taking part in the project. But a further 100 copies in English will be
made available to Ecsite, which will then send them on to whoever will request them, so
hopefully these will also go out to other countries.
Q. How will young people be able to take part in the online activities?
A. There will be discussion forums and information materials in different languages, but
above all the NanOlympics will require young people and classes to create the products
by which they will play this game. Again, the participant countries will be able to enter
this competition. With TimeForNano we want to go beyond the classic museum audi-
ence, and in cooperation with NanoTV, NanoToTouch and NanoYou we will expand our
multiplier capacity even further. We find it really interesting that the European Commis-
sion has created this cluster of communication outreach projects, because we can see
there will be a lot of mutual benefits to be drawn out of this collaboration network: this
critical mass will strengthen all of us. I believe the visual languages of the Web, video clips
and some TV can communicate and stimulate, say, a 17-year-old’s creativity in a much
more direct way. All activities will start at the beginning of the forthcoming school year in
September. The NanOlympics final results should be available next May, but we will also
work throughout the 2010-2011 school year.
Q. Talking about multipliers, your project will have over 450 of them, with teachers featur-
ing prominently in this category.
A. Teachers are among the main users of science museums and we are very used to
working with them. They are the ideal interface with youngsters. Public debate about
nano is not as strong as that about biotechnology yet, but I do not doubt we will get a
very good response from them. Teachers are also very interested in using new science
teaching methods, as they realise the current ones leave a lot to be desired everywhere
in the world. Among the multipliers, we are also talking about museums, of course, and
their capacity to reach real and virtual visitors, too. Ecsite is obviously a very important
subject in all this.
162
Q. How would you describe your public engagement approach to nanotechnology
communication?
A. It is our very same approach to many other subjects: as science museums, we don’t
just want to be places of communication, but of engagement as well, at different levels
of depth. We always aim to stimulate young people to ask questions to aid their develop-
ment of the critical attitude which lies at the very foundation of the scientific method.
With adults, of course we can discuss contents directly in an easier way. We also aim to
involve public institutions and the world of research in dialogue.
Q. How do you see the future of your communication activities after 2011?
A. I believe we should aim for cross-Continental collaboration. We are in contact with the
NISE network of US science museums working on nano. We should think about setting
up nanotechnology communication projects bringing together European with American
or Asian counterparts, e.g. with the US or Japan, for instance. I do feel very excited at the
idea of building global projects.
163
PART V. WHERE and

WHEN IS IT
HAPPENING?
A sound schedule for the
Table 14. EC ‘Communication and Dialogue Menu’ on nanotechnology
164
TARGET MULTIPLIER- AUDIENCE
D. SCIENTISTS -
A. SCHOOLS B. SCIENCE CENTRES C. MEDIA INDUSTRY - BUSINESS E. NGOs F. POLICYMAKERS
1. EDUCATIONAL: 1. ECSITE Conference 1. ECSITE Conference 1. EuroNanoForum 2009 1. EuroNanoForum 2009 1. EuroNanoForum 2009
TV audiovisuals on (Milan, 2-6 June 2009) (Milan, 2-6 June 2009) (Prague, 2-5 June 2009) (Prague, 2-5 June 2009) (Prague, 2-5 June 2009)
nanomedicine, nano- Participative workshop Participative workshop 1.1 – Participative 1.1 – Participative 1.1 – Participative
environment, nanoen- on EC policy and proj- on EC policy and proj- workshop between EC workshop between EC workshop between EC
ergy, nano-learning: ects on communicating ects on communicating projects on communi- projects on communi- projects on communi-
broadcast on 40 major nanotechnology (6 June)
nanotechnology (6 June) cating nanotechnology cating nanotechnology cating nanotechnology
EU/AS TV networks and
2. Participative workshops (5 June) (5 June) (5 June)
http://www.youris.com 2. EuroNanoForum 2009
in EU cities (Grenoble,
website (three video (Prague, 2-5 June 2009) 1.2 – NanoInLife DVD 1.2 – NanoInLife DVD 1.2 – NanoInLife DVD
Paris, Barcelona from
teasers on nanomedi- (2-5 June) (2-5 June) (2-5 June)
November 2009 to 2.1 – Participative
cine, nano-environment,
March 2011): workshop between EC 1.3 – three video teasers 1.3 – three video teasers 1.3 – three video teasers
nano-energy from July
projects on communi- on nanomedicine, on nanomedicine, on nanomedicine,
2009, on nano-learning 2.1 – FUTU: participative
cating nanotechnology nano-environment, nano-environment, nano-environment,
from July 2010) workshop producing
(5 June) nano-energy (2-5 June) nano-energy (2-5 June) nano-energy (2-5 June)
15 videos on nanotech
2. EDUTAINMENT: (400
scenarios (Grenoble, 2.2 – NanoInLife DVD 1.4 – Two articles and 1.4 – Two articles and 1.4 – Two articles and
schools of 27 EU/AS
Paris, Barcelona, from (2-5 June) poster presentations poster presentations poster presentations
countries, from De-
November 2009 to on EC communication on EC communication on EC communication
CALL TO ACTION
cember 2009 (1st stage) 2.3 – three video teasers

March 2011) projects projects projects
and from June 2010 (2nd on nanomedicine,
stage) until 2011 and 2.2 – SITU: photo contest nano-environment, 2. ECSITE Conference 2. ECSITE Conference 2. High Level Expert
beyond): on ubiquitous nano- nano-energy (2-5 June) (Milan, 2-6 June 2009) (Milan, 2-6 June 2009) Group (Brussels, Febru-
techs (Grenoble, Paris, ary and June 2009)
2.1 – Videos, posters, pre- 2.4 – Two articles and Participative workshop on Participative workshop
Barcelona, from Febru-
sentations (nano-kits, poster presentations EC policy and projects on on EC policy and projects 3. Five ad hoc Indus-
ary 2010)
travelling expo, lab- on EC communication trial Advisory Group
communicating nanotech- on communicating
in-school) from 2010; 2.3 – daily environment projects workshops (Brussels,
prototypes monthly investigation science
nology (6 June) nanotechnology
July 2009)
presented in Science centres in 12 EU/AS
3. Second EC Implementa-
tion Plan on nanotech- 3. High Level Expert 3. Second EC Implementa-
Centres from December countries: from January 4. Second EC Implementa-
Group (Brussels, Febru- tion Plan on nanotech-
2009 (1st stage) and June 2010 (1st stage) and from
nology (Brussels, from tion Plan on nanotech-
ary and June 2009) nology (Brussels, from
2010 (2nd stage) August 2010 (2nd stage) September 2009) nology (Brussels, from
September 2009)
4. Five ad hoc Indus- September 2009)
2.2 – Workshop ‘WHAT 2.4 – real size experi- 4. EC Action Plan for
nanotechnology (Brus- trial Advisory Group 4. EC Action Plan 2010-
IS NANO?’ from ments science centres 5. EC Action Plan 2010-
workshops (Brussels, 2014 for nanotechnol-
December 2009 (1st in 12 EU/AS countries: sels, from December 2014 for nanotechnol-
July 2009) ogy (Brussels, from
stage) and June 2010 from January 2010 (1st 2009) ogy (Brussels, from
December 2009)
(2nd stage) stage) and from August 5. 36th Annual Meeting December 2009)
5. NANO4YOU Workshop
2010 (2nd stage) on public engagement and Exposition of the 5. Future FP7 Calls for
2.3 – Virtual exhibitions 6. Future FP7 Calls for
in nanotechnology Controlled Release proposals and related
from December 2009 2.5 - nano-user confer- proposals and related
(Brussels, from March Society (Bella Center, actions on communica-
(1st stage) and June 2010 ence science centres actions on communica-
2010) Copenhagen, 18-22 July tion and engagement
(2nd stage) in 12 EU/AS countries: tion and engagement
2009) (Brussels, from February
from January 2010 (1st (Brussels, from February
2.4 – NANO Time- 6. CORDIS web page and 2010)
stage) and from August 6. EuroNanoMedicine 2010)
Machine video-game leaflet (Brussels, from
2010 (2nd stage) (Bled, Slovenia, 26-28 6. CORDIS web page and
from December 2009 March 2010) 7. CORDIS web page and
September 2009) leaflet (Brussels, from
(1st stage) and June 2010 leaflet (Brussels, from
March 2010)
(2nd stage) March 2010)
165
166

D. SCIENTISTS -
2.5 - Workshop ‘Role 2.6 - travelling exhibition 7. Workshop on converg- 7. Second EC Implementa- 7. NANO4YOU Workshop 8. NANO4YOU Workshop
Play’ from December from science centres ing technologies (Brus- tion Plan on nanotech- on public engagement on public engagement
2009 (1st stage) and June in 12 EU/AS countries: sels, from April 2010) nology (Brussels, from in nanotechnology in nanotechnology
2010 (2nd stage) from January 2010 (1st September 2009) (Brussels, from March (Brussels, from March
8. Fourteen TV audiovisu-
stage) and from August 2010) 2010)
2.6 – Virtual Dialogue als on nanotechnology 8. EC Action Plan 2010-
2010 (2nd stage)
Toolbox on Nano from broadcast on 40 major 2014 for nanotechnol- 8. Workshop on converg- 9. Workshop on converg-
December 2009 (1st 3. Participative activi- EU/AS TV networks, ogy (Brussels, from ing technologies (Brus- ing technologies (Brus-
stage) and June 2010 ties in EU/AS science Web platforms and December 2009) sels, from April 2010) sels, from April 2010)
(2nd stage) centres from December newspapers (e.g. http://
2009, August 2010 to 9. Future FP7 Calls for 9. Fourteen TV audiovisu- 10. Fourteen TV audiovisu-
www.youris.com) (from
2.7 – Training via school- proposals and related als on nanotechnology als on nanotechnology
March 2011: July 2010)
curricula through EU/ actions on communica- broadcast on 40 major broadcast on 40 major
AS SchoolNet from 3.1 – Nano-kit (science 9. DEEPEN, NANO- tion and engagement EU/AS TV networks, EU/AS TV networks,
December 2009 (1st centres in 12 EU/AS CAP NANOPLAT, (Brussels, from February Web platforms and Web platforms and
stage) and June 2010 countries: from Decem- FRAMING-NANO, 2010) newspapers (e.g. http:// newspapers (e.g. youris.
(2nd stage) ber 2009) MACOSPOL, NODE de- www.youris.com (from com (from July)
10. CORDIS web page and
liberative processes for July)
2.8 – Nano-kit from 3.2 – Creativity-based leaflet (Brussels, from 11. DEEPEN, NANO-
stakeholders’ dialogue
CALL TO ACTION
December 2009 EU/AS-wide contest March 2010) 10. DEEPEN, NANO- CAP NANOPLAT,
in nanotechnology (Bel-
NanOlympics (from CAP NANOPLAT, FRAMING-NANO,
2.9 - Creativity-based EU/ gium, Czech Republic, 11. NANO4YOU Workshop
January 2010) FRAMING-NANO, MACOSPOL, NODE de-
AS-wide contest NanO- Germany, Italy, Neth- on public engagement
MACOSPOL, NODE deliberative processes for
lympics (from January 3.3 – educational training erlands, Portugal and in nanotechnology
liberative processes for stakeholders’ dialogue
2010) programmes for stu- UK, from 2009 to 2010; (Brussels, from March
stakeholders’ dialogue in nanotechnology (Bel-
dents one-day or modu- NODE in most Member 2010)
2.10 – educational train- in nanotechnology (Bel- gium, Czech Republic,
lar (400 schools from 27 States from 2011)
ing programmes for 12. Workshop on converg- gium, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Neth-
EU/AS countries from
students one-day or 10. EC Communication ing technologies (Brus- Germany, Italy, Neth- erlands, Portugal and
February 2010)
modular (from February Roadmap on nanotech- sels, from April 2010) erlands, Portugal and UK, from 2009 to 2010;
2010) 3.4 – educational training nology (2009-2011); UK, from 2009 to 2010; NODE in most Member
books and programmes Brussels, from October NODE in most Member States from 2011)
2.11 – educational als on nanotechnology
for teachers (schools 2009 States from 2011)
training books and pro- broadcast on 40 major 12. EC Communication
from 12 EU/AS coun-
grammes for teachers 11. Clustering and Mapping EU/AS TV networks, 11. EC Communication Roadmap on nanotech-
tries from February
(from February 2010) EC projects on Nano- Web platforms and Roadmap on nanotechnology (2009-2011);
2010)
technology, Brussels, newspapers (e.g. youris. nology (2009-2011); Brussels, from October
2.12 – Open-Nano-Lab to
4. Open-Nano-Lab from April 2010 com (from July 2010) Brussels, from October 2009
schools
(science centres in Milan 2009
(science centres in 14. DEEPEN, NANO- 13. Clustering and Mapping
Milan (IT) and Gothem- (IT) and Gothenburg (SE) CAP NANOPLAT, 12. Clustering and Mapping EC projects on Nano-
burg (SE) from March from March 2010, Mu- FRAMING-NANO, EC projects on Nano- technology, Brussels,
2010, Munich (DE) from nich (DE) from 2009), MACOSPOL, NODE de- technology, Brussels, from April 2010
2009), other EU loca- other EU locations from liberative processes for from April 2010
tions from 2010) 2010) stakeholders’ dialogue
in nanotechnology (Bel-
5. Nano Researcher Live- gium, Czech Republic,
Area (science centres Germany, Italy, Neth-
in Mechelen (BE, Tartu erlands, Portugal and
(ET), Naples (IT) from UK, from 2009 to 2010;
October 2009)
D. SCIENTISTS -
2.13 – Nano Researcher 6. Nano-Days, festivals, NODE in most Member
Live-Area open to nano-cafés (science States from 2011)
schools (science centres centres of 20 EU/AS 15. EC
Communication
in Mechelen (BE, Tartu from November 2010) Roadmap on nanotech-
(ET), Naples (IT) from nology (2009-2011);
October 2009) 7. Future FP7 Calls for
proposals and related Brussels, from October
CALL TO ACTION
3. CORDIS web page and actions on communica- 2009

leaflet (from March tion and engagement 16. Clustering
and Mapping
2010) (Brussels, from February EC projects on Nano-
4. EC Communication 2010) technology, Brussels,
Roadmap on nanotech- 8. CORDIS web page and from April 2010
nology (2009-2011); leaflet (Brussels, from
Brussels, from October March 2010)
2009
als on nanotechnology
displayed in 20 major
EU/AS science centres
(from July 2010)
10. EC Communication
Roadmap on nanotech-
nology (2009-2011);
Brussels, from October
2009
D. SCIENTISTS -
WITH WHAT EFFECT
stimulate curiosity,
•• 1. provide attractive set up a image and film
•• provide viable and smart
•• promote the creation of
•• create continuous chan-
••
interest, educate on support to perform as database on nano Internet resources platforms and forums nels of communication
nanotechnology active multipliers in cit- linking scientists to outside crisis
develop a neutral re-
•• develop product label-
••
ies and schools (via art NGOs
provide simple and
••
festival, theatre, movies,
source centre on nano ling with a special logo provide info on different
••
realistic information: games exhibitions and
indicating the presence develop pairing scheme
•• levels for local, national
develop person-to-per-
••
what is nano? A science, of nanotechnology to provide permanent or specialised decision
activities) son relationship building
not magic treated products connections between makers
initiatives between jour-
groups
nalists of all specialties develop mouth-to-
••
and nano scientists, mouth marketing and
167
168

D. SCIENTISTS -
show how knowledge is

•• exhibitions in cultural
•• ethicists, social scien- product demonstration guarantee green quality
••
growing and evolving, centres, science centres, tists, NGOs, etc. long term perspective markers for laboratories
nothing is fixed edutainment who reach pre-defined
set up crossover shadow-
•• promote communication
••
standards of safety in
stimulate critical
•• events in schools
•• ing /work placement training for natural and
handling nano-products
thought on societal and opportunities social scientists trough
games, cartoons
••
ethical implications of seminars, courses, sum-
set up events/discussion
••
nanotechnology nano fairs, theatre,
•• mer schools
events developed in
festivals
stimulate interest in
•• partnership with media promote meetings
••
science careers and the Internet, TV-radio-
•• between natural,
increase knowledge of media social scientists and
opportunities in science communicators
friendly guide, mascot or
••
create responsible
•• sympathy figure to show prepare presentations for
••
citizens children the nano world senior scientists – inter-
view coaching
educate with fun
•• Internet platforms, pod-
••
casts/trendy media promote real hands-on
••
stimulate curiosity using
••
WITH WHAT EFFECT
experiences
perception, body lan- organised debates
••
guage, dance and art
celebrity testimonials on
••
foster user-oriented
•• science issues
approach answering the
question: why is this bringing famous scientist
••
interesting for me to schools
exchange information on
•• festivals
••
EC actions in nanotech- contests for video and
••
nology and related web creative art productions
pages
theatre productions
••
edutainment interactive
••
applications – hands-on
experiments
visit to labs/experiment-
••
ing/stage experiments/
dialogue
open labs, out-campus
••
events, real lab guided
tours contact with
scientists, internships,
orientation fairs, EC
stands
theatre, games, shows
••
D. SCIENTISTS -
1. EDUCATIONAL: 1. ECSITE Conference 1. ECSITE Conference 1. EuroNanoForum 2009 1. EuroNanoForum 2009 1. EuroNanoForum 2009
Coverage: 630 kE for 5 (Milan, 2-6 June 2009) (Milan, 2-6 June 2009) (Prague, 2-5 June 2009) (Prague, 2-5 June 2009) (Prague, 2-5 June 2009)
OUTREACH (E= end audience, i.e. citizens) - OUTPUT: coverage - OUTTAKE: Feedback - OUTCOME: dialogue
minutes Coverage: 15 kE
•• Participative workshop Coverage: 13.5 kE
•• Coverage: 9 kE
•• Coverage: 1.3 kE
••
Feedback: 422 kE on EC policy and projects
Dialogue (web pages): Feedback: 12 kE
•• Feedback: 8 kE
•• Feedback: 800 E
••
on communicating
105 kE Dialogue: 6 kE
•• nanotechnology Dialogue: 4 kE
•• Dialogue: 2.7 kE
•• Dialogue: 400 kE
••
2. EDUTAINMENT 2. Participative workshops Coverage: 50 kE
•• 1.1 - Participative 1.1 - Participative 1.1 - Participative
in EU cities (Grenoble, workshop between EC workshop between EC workshop between EC
Coverage: 3925 kE (di-
••
Paris, Barcelona) Feedback: 12.5 kE
•• projects on communi- projects on communi- projects on communi-
rectly 400 schools, 200 cating nanotechnology cating nanotechnology cating nanotechnology
indirectly, 650 students Coverage: 856 kE
••
(5th June) (5th June) (5th June)
each)
Feedback: 581 kE
•• 2. EuroNanoForum 2009
1.2 - NanoInLife DVD 1.2 - NanoInLife DVD 1.2 – NanoInLife DVD
Feedback: 2653 kE
•• (Prague, 2-5 June 2009)
Dialogue: 132 kE
•• (2-5 June) (2-5 June) (2-5 June)
Dialogue: 560 kE
••
2.1 – FUTU: participative 1.3 - Three video teasers 1.3 – Three video teasers 1.3 – Three video teasers
2.1 - Videos, posters, workshop producing Feedback: 9 kE
•• on nanomedicine, on nanomedicine, on nanomedicine,
presentations 15 videos on nanotech nano-environment, nano-environment, nano-environment,
Dialogue: 2 kE
•• nano-energy (2-5 June) nano-energy (2-5 June) nano-energy (2-5 June)
scenarios (Grenoble,
Coverage: 76 kE
••
Paris, Barcelona) 2.1 – Participative work- 1.4 – Two articles and 1.4 – Two articles and 1.4 – Two articles and
Feedback: 57 kE
•• shop between EC proj- poster presentations poster presentations poster presentations
Coverage: 3 kE (30
••
ects on communicating on EC communication on EC communication on EC communication
Dialogue: 51 kE
•• people per session, 300
nanotechnology projects projects projects
via Web per 3 locations
2.2 - Workshop for about two years) 2.2 – NanoInLife DVD 2. ECSITE Conference 2. ECSITE Conference 2. High Level Expert
Coverage: 76 kE
•• 2.3 – Three video teasers (Milan, 2-6 June 2009) (Milan, 2-6 June 2009) Group (Brussels, Febru-
Feedback: 57 kE
•• on nanomedicine, ary and June 2009)
Dialogue: 500
•• Participative workshop on Participative workshop
nano-environment,
Dialogue: 23 kE
•• EC policy and projects on on EC policy and proj- Coverage: 1.2 kE
••
2.2 – SITU: photo contest nano-energy
2.3 - Virtual exhibitions on ubiquitous nano- communicating nanotech- ectson communicating Feedback: 600 E
••
2.4 – Two articles and nology (6th June) nanotechnology
techs (Grenoble, Paris,
Coverage: 65 kE
•• poster presentations Dialogue: 240 kE
••
Barcelona, from Febru- Coverage: 7 kE
on EC communication •• Coverage: 7 kE
••
Feedback: 57 kE
•• ary 2010) 3. Five ad hoc Indus-
projects
Feedback: 4 kE
•• trial Advisory Group
Dialogue: 51 kE
•• Coverage: 18 kE (5 000 E
••
3. Second EC Imple- workshops (Brussels,July
direct + 5 000 via Web, Dialogue: 2 kE
••
2.4 - NANO Time-Ma- mentation Plan on 2009)
for about two years)
chine video-game nanotechnology 3. High Level Expert 3. Second EC Implementa-
••Coverage: 3.7 kE
Feedback: 12 kE
•• Group (Brussels, Febru- tion Plan on nanotech-
Coverage: 57 kE
••
ary and June 2009) nology (Brussels, from Feedback: 1.8 E
••
Dialogue: 3 kE
••
September 2009)
Feedback: 51 kE
•• Feedback: 800 E
••
Coverage: 1.5 kE
•• Dialogue: 750 E
••
2.3 - daily environment
Dialogue: 20 kE
••
investigation science Feedback: 0.8 kE
•• 4. Second EC Implementa-
2.5 - Workshop ‘Role centres in 12 EU/AS 4. EC Action Plan for Feedback: 16 kE
•• tion Plan on nanotech-
Dialogue: 300 E
••
Play’ countries nanotechnology nology (Brussels, from
Dialogue: 4 kE
••
4. Five ad hoc Indus- September 2009)
Coverage: 57 kE
••
trial Advisory Group
Coverage: 2.5 kE
••
169
170

D. SCIENTISTS -
Feedback: 51 kE
•• Feedback: 2.5 kE
•• workshops (Brussels, 4. EC Action Plan 2010- Feedback: 1.1 E
••
July 2009) 2014 for nanotechnol-
Dialogue: 20 kE
••
ogy (Brussels, from

Coverage: 7.5 kE
••
2.6 - Virtual Dialogue 2.4 - real size experi- 5. NANO4YOU Workshop December 2009) 5. EC Action Plan 2010-
Toolbox ments science centres on public engagement Feedback: 3.8 kE
•• 2014 for nanotechnol-
Coverage: 25 kE
••
in 12 EU/AS countries: in nanotechnology ogy (Brussels, from
Coverage: 76 kE
••
Feedback: 17 kE
•• December 2009)
Coverage: 76 kE
••
Feedback: 57kE
•• 5. 36th Annual Meeting
Dialogue: 4 kE
••
Feedback: 57 kE
•• Feedback: 3.7 kE
•• and Exposition of the
Dialogue: 51 kE
••
Controlled Release 5. Future FP7 Calls for Feedback: 5.6 kE
••
Dialogue: 23 kE
••
2.7 – Curricula training Society (Bella Center, proposals and related
Dialogue: 2.2 kE
••
2.5 - nano-user confer- 6. CORDIS web page and Copenhagen, 18-22 July actions on communica-
Coverage: 57 kE
•• 2009) tion and engagement 6. Future FP7 Calls for
ence science centres in leaflet
Feedback: 51 kE
•• 12 EU/AS countries (Brussels, from February proposals and related
Coverage: 16.5 kE
••
2010) actions on communica-
Dialogue: 20 kE
•• Coverage: 20 kE (direct
••
Feedback: 11 kE
Feedback: 5 kE
•• •• tion and engagement
150 E and 10 kE via Coverage: 25 kE
••
2.8 – Nano-kit (Brussels, from February
Web, twice) Dialogue: 500 E
••
Feedback: 17 kE
•• 2010)
Coverage: 2010 kE
•• 6. EuroNanoMedicine
7. Workshop on converg- Dialogue: 4 kE
••
Feedback: 1347 kE
•• ing technologies (Bled, Slovenia, 26-28
Dialogue: 3.4 kE
••
September 2009) 6. CORDIS web page and Feedback: 2.8 kE
••
Dialogue: 337 kE
•• 2.6 - travelling exhibition
Coverage: 5 kE
•• leaflet (Brussels, from
Coverage: 13.5 kE
••
2.9 – EU/AS-wide contest from science centres in Feedback: 3.7 kE
•• March 2010)
NanOlympics 12 EU/AS countries Feedback: 8 kE
•• 7. CORDIS web page and
Dialogue: 2.8 kE
••
leaflet (Brussels, from
Coverage: 345 kE
•• Coverage: 720 kE (direct
••
8. Fourteen TV audiovisu- Feedback: 33 kE
•• March 2010)
300 000 E and indirectly
Feedback: 231 kE
•• 100 000 E, via Web, for als on nanotechnology 7. Second EC Implementa- Dialogue: 8 kE
••
about two years) broadcast on 40 major tion Plan on nanotech-
Dialogue: 116 kE
•• EU/AS TV networks, nology (Brussels, from 7. NANO4YOU: Work- Feedback: 4.2 kE
••
2.10 – Educational train- Feedback: 482 kE
•• Web platforms and September 2009) shop on public engage-
Dialogue: 1.7 kE
••
ing programmes newspapers ment in nanotechnology
Dialogue: 96 kE
•• (Brussels, from March 8. NANO4YOU: Work-
Coverage: 57 kE
•• Participative activi- Coverage: 82000 kE for
•• 2010) shop on public engage-
3.
5 minutes Feedback: 21 kE
••
Feedback: 51 kE
•• ties in EU/AS science ment in nanotechnology
Dialogue: 5 kE
••
centres Feedback: 16000 kE
•• (Brussels, from March
Dialogue: 20 kE
••
8. EC Action Plan 2010- Feedback: 6 kE
•• 2010)
Coverage: 2,418 kE
••
2.11Educational training 2014 for nanotechnol- Coverage: 3.7 kE
••
Feedback: 1,620 kE
•• DEEPEN, NANO- Dialogue: 2 kE
••
books and programmes 9. ogy (Brussels, from
for teachers CAP NANOPLAT, December 2009) 8. Workshop on converg- Feedback: 1.8 kE
••
Dialogue: 467 kE
••
FRAMING-NANO, ing technologies (Brus- Dialogue: 750 E
••
Coverage: 6 kE
•• 3.1 – Nano-kit (science Coverage: 125 kE
••
MACOSPOL,NODE sels, from April 2010)
Feedback: 5 kE
•• centres in 12 EU/AS (UK, Portugal, Czech Feedback: 84 kE
•• 9. Workshop on converg-
countries) Coverage: 12 kE
•• ing technologies (Brus-
Dialogue: 2 kE
•• Republic, Netherlands, Dialogue: 21 kE
••
Feedback: 6 kE
•• sels, from April 2010)
Coverage: 2,010 kE
•• Belgium, Italy, Germany,
2.12 – Open-Nano-Lab to from 2009 to 2010; 9. Future FP7 Calls for Coverage: 3.7 kE
••
schools Feedback: 1,347 kE
•• proposals and related Dialogue: 2 kE
••
D. SCIENTISTS -
Coverage: 1,206 kE
•• NODE in most Member actions on communica- 9. Fourteen TV audiovisu- Feedback: 1.8 kE
••
States from 2011) tion and engagement als on nanotechnology
Feedback: 844 kE
•• 3.2 - Creativity-based Dialogue: 750 E
••
(Brussels, from February broadcast on 40 major

EU/AS-wide contest Mainly via NODE:
Dialogue: 42 kE
•• 2010) EU/AS TV networks, 10. FourteenTV audiovisu-
NanOlympics
Coverage: 9500 kE
•• Web platforms and als on nanotechnology
2.13 – Nano Researcher Coverage: 125 kE
••
newspapers (e.g. youris.
Coverage: 345 kE
•• broadcast on 40 major
Live-Area open to Feedback: 3800 kE
•• com (from July 2010)
Feedback: 84 kE
•• EU/AS TV networks,
schools Feedback: 231 kE
••
Dialogue: 2850 kE
•• Web-platforms and
Dialogue: 21 kE
••
Coverage: 550 kE
•• newspapers (e.g. youris.
10. EC
Communication 10. CORDIS web page and Feedback: 167 kE
•• com (from July 2010)
Feedback: 368 kE
•• 3.3 – educational training Roadmap on nanotech-
programmes for stu- leaflet (Brussels, from Dialogue: 42 kE
••
Dialogue: 20 kE
•• nology (2009-2011), March 2010)
dents one-day or modu- Brussels, from October 10. DEEPEN, NANO- Feedback: 42 kE
••
3. CORDIS web page and lar (400 schools from 27 2009 Coverage: 250 kE
•• CAP NANOPLAT,
leaflet EU/AS countries) Dialogue: 10 kE
••
Coverage: 10 kE
•• FRAMING-NANO,
Coverage: 3 kE
•• MACOSPOL, NODE de- 11. 1DEEPEN, NANO-
Feedback: 3 kE
•• CAP NANOPLAT,
Feedback: 900 E
•• liberative processes for
Dialogue: 300 E
•• 11. NANO4YOU Workshop stakeholders’ dialogue FRAMING-NANO,
Dialogue: 90 E
•• on public engagement in nanotechnology MACOSPOL, NODE de-
11. Clustering
and Mapping in nanotechnology
4. EC Communication 3.4 – educational training (UK, Portugal, Czech liberative processes for
EC projects on Nano- (Brussels, from March
Roadmap on nanotech- books and programmes Republic, Netherlands, stakeholders’ dialogue
technology, Brussels, 2010)
nology (2009-2011); for teachers (schools from April 2010 Belgium, Italy, Germany, in nanotechnology (Bel-
Brussels, from October from 12 EU/AS coun- Coverage: 7.5 kE
•• from 2009 to 2010; gium, Czech Republic,
2009 tries from February Coverage: 10 kE
•• Germany, Italy, Neth-
Feedback: 3.8 kE
•• NODE in most Member
2010) Feedback: 3 kE
•• erlands, Portugal and
Coverage: 2.7 kE
•• States from 2011)
Coverage: 6 kE
•• UK, from 2009 to 2010;
Feedback: 0.8 kE
•• Mainly via NODE:
12. Workshop on converg- NODE in most Member
Feedback: 5 kE
••
Dialogue: 81 E
•• ing technologies (Brus- Coverage: 170 kE
•• States from 2011)
Dialogue: 2 kE
•• sels, from April 2010) Feedback: 85 kE
•• Mainly via NODE:
••
4. Open-Nano-Lab Coverage: 7.5 kE
••
••Dialogue: 64 kE Coverage: 127 kE
••
(science centres in Munich Feedback: 3.8 kE
••
(DE), Milan (IT), Gothem-
Dialogue: 1.5 kE
•• Roadmap on nanotech- Dialogue: 48 kE
••
burg (SE) nology (2009-2011);
13. FourteenTV audiovisu- 12. EC
Communication
Coverage: 1920 kE
•• Brussels, from October
als on nanotechnology 2009 Roadmap on nanotech-
Feedback: 1286 kE
•• broadcast on 40 major nology (2009-2011);
EU/AS TV networks, Coverage: 25 kE
•• Brussels, from October
Dialogue: 51 kE
•• Web platforms and Feedback: 17 kE
•• 2009
5. Nano Researcher Live- newspapers, e.g. youris.
Area (science centres com (from July 2010) Dialogue: 4 kE
••
in Mechelen (BE, Tartu Coverage: 250 kE
•• 12. Clustering and Mapping Feedback: 5 kE
••
(ET), Naples (IT) EC projects on Nano-
Feedback: 167 kE
••
Coverage: 820 kE
•• technology, Brussels,
171
Dialogue: 42 kE
•• from April 2010
172

D. SCIENTISTS -
OUTREACH (E= end audience, i.e. citizens) - OUTPUT: coverage - OUTTAKE: Feedback - OUTCOME: dialogue CALL TO ACTION
Feedback: 549 kE
•• 14. DEEPEN, NANOCAP Coverage: 25 kE
•• 13. 1Clustering
and Map-
NANOPLAT, FRAM- ping EC projects on
Dialogue: 22 kE
••
ING-NANO, MA- Nanotechnology, Brus-
6. Nano-Days, festivals, COSPOL, NODE Dialogue: 4 kE
•• sels, from April 2010
open-campus (science (Belgium, Czech Re- Coverage: 10 kE
••
centres of 20 EU/AS public, Germany, Italy,
Netherlands, Portugal Feedback: 5 kE
••
Coverage: 550 kE
••
and UK, from 2009 to Dialogue: 2 kE
••
Feedback: 385 kE
••
2010; NODE in most
Dialogue: 20 kE
•• Member States from
7. Future FP7 Calls for 2011)
proposals and related Mainly via NODE:
••
actions on communica-
tion and engagement Coverage: 112 kE
••
Coverage: 15 kE
••
Feedback: 3 kE
••
Dialogue: 300 E
•• 15. EC
Communication
8. CORDIS web page and nology (2009-2011),
leaflet Brussels, from October
Coverage: 15 kE
•• 2009
Feedback: 4.5 kE
••
Dialogue: 450 E
••
9. Fourteen TV audiovisu- Dialogue: 21 kE
••
als on nanotechnology 16. Clustering
and Mapping
displayed in 20 major EC projects on Nano-
EU/AS science centres technology, Brussels,
(from July 2010) from April 2010
Coverage: 904 kE
••
Feedback: 606 kE
••
Dialogue: 12 kE
••
nology (2009-2011),
Brussels, from October
2009
Coverage: 15 kE
••
Feedback: 4.5 kE
••
Dialogue: 450 E
••
D. SCIENTISTS -
OVERALL OUTREACH
OUTPUTS: 4,560 kE OUTPUTS: 7,528 kE OUTPUTS: 91,645 kE OUTPUTS: 1,124 kE OUTPUTS: 588 kE OUTPUTS: 250 kE
OUTTAKES: 3,077 kE OUTTAKES: 5,049 kE OUTTAKES: 19,844 kE OUTTAKES: 725 kE OUTTAKES: 359 kE OUTTAKES: 136 kE
OUTCOMES: 666 kE OUTCOMES: 719 kE OUTCOMES: 3,162 kE OUTCOMES: 224 kE OUTCOMES: 137 kE OUTCOMES: 70 kE
D. SCIENTISTS -
Grand Total OUTREACH
OUTPUTS (Coverage): Ratio Feedback/Coverage:

27.6%
105,694,640 kE
Ratio Dialogue/Coverage:
OUTTAKES (Feedback):
4.7%
29,191,977 E
OUTCOMES (Dialogue):
4,978,769 E
173
OUTPUT: how the product goes, i.e. direct and indirect COVERAGE; OUTTAKE: what
audiences do with the product, i.e. FEEDBACK; OUTCOME: what audiences do with the
message, DIALOGUE & ENGAGEMENT.
5.1 Outreach figures: discussion

The concept of communication and dialogue outreach is not that simple to grasp. How-
ever, it can be evaluated with the help of various parameters (see also Section 3.3.8).
(i) OUTPUT: How far the communication product goes (The Coverage).
(ii) OUTTAKE: What audiences will do with the communication product (The Feedback),
showing a certain change of attitude with respect to the EC’s image, knowledge,
awareness and trust in dialogue.
(iii) OUTCOME: What audiences will do with the message (The Dialogue and Engage-
ment), showing a certain change of behaviour with respect to the EC. Also, it indicates
the application of new knowledge to dialogue and engagement aimed at consensus-
building.
Overall, projected estimates of the rough figures for outreach are considered: these are
meant to measure how different the potential performance by various multiplier-audi-
ences in reaching out to citizens-as-end-audience may be. So the outreach figures for
the associated end-audiences are assessed according to the different multipliers capa-
bility to attain them. Clearly, the media are performing much better as multipliers than
industry and policymakers, while NGOs show intermediate figures. This means the same
communication product or activity behaves differently when handled by each multiplier,
guaranteeing a different coverage for each end-audience.
Feedback measures the degree of reaction to the information that each audience shows,
e.g. interest and quest for more in-depth information. As a safe estimate, between one
third and two thirds of the audiences reached by information show a certain action or

1
Personal information
from: Dr. Yoel interest in knowing more. Dialogue is much a smaller figure so far, and represents a small
Rothschild, coordinator fraction of feedback from one to twenty percentage points, depending on the activity,
NANOYOU; Dr. Ulrich
Kernbach, coordinator whether passive (e.g. video) or active (e.g. participative event, workshop, contest).
NANOTOTOUCH; Dr.
Laurent Chicoineau,
partner NANOYOU
The main outreach figures have been provided by project coordinators (1), and we have
and TIMEFORNANO; fine tuned them by adjustment formulas. For instance, activities targeting schools and sci-
Dr. Anne-Marie Bruyas ence centres (A. 2.1-7, A.2.10-11, B.2.3-5, B.3.3-4) are addressing certain pools of students
and Dr. Alessandra
Zanazzi, coordinator visiting science centres and attending schools taking part in the projects: though each
TIMEFORNANO; activity takes place in a different moment of the school year, there are some overlapping
Engineer Mario
Martinoli, coordinator pools of students benefiting from these activities, so it would not be correct to multiply the
NANOTV. audience coverage by the number of activities, as most of the student pools are the same.
174
Other activities show a different outreach behaviour, since different or partially overlap-
ping audiences are reached once or repeatedly by way of dedicated events, actions in
schools, science centres and city centres, project workshops and events, but also through
both publications and the Web (A.2.8-9, A.2.12-13, A.3-4, B.2.1-2, B.2.6, B.3.1-2, B.4-6,
B.8, B.10, C.1-7, C.9-10, D.1-12, D.14-15, E.1-8, E.10-11, F.1-9, F.11-12).
Some dedicated events (C-D-E-F.1, C-D-E.2) show different outreached audiences de-
pending on their specific multiplying potential, such as media coverage, timing and Web.
Additionally, other activities associated with events (B.2.1-2) are characterised by different
outreach behaviours.
To illustrate, the participative workshop at point B.2.1 will feature various sessions for a
limited audience, while the participative event under point B.2.2 is more like a contest
than a conventional workshop, though integrated with one session in a lab or in a science
centre for volunteers: therefore it can potentially reach more people.
Even if the participative event at point B.2.5 will not be addressing massive audiences, as
it is a dedicated conference designed to reach a limited number of interested people di-
rectly, its significance on the Web could be stronger due to the importance and novelty of
the approach. Finally, the exhibition at point B.2.6 will certainly attain high levels of direct
outreach, because it is displayed in various towns for several months: as a consequence,
its indirect outreach potential will not be negligible.
Other activities and events will address challenges of massive outreach (A.2.12-13 and
B.4-5). When these activities address the general public (B.4-5), the outreach numbers
directly attained (i.e. the visitors) and via the Web can be very high altogether, considering
that these activities will take place in at least three European locations over two to three
years’ time, while additional locations are being considered. On the other hand, these
activities do guarantee that a certain dialogue will take place, though the figures are not
very high. The number of people they address are high so there is limited possibility to
have a more in-depth discussion with visitors.
However, these activities (A.2.12-13) will be also presented to the schools, and will take
place in at least three European locations over two to three years’ time, while additional
locations are being considered. In these cases the outreach figures for these young audi-
ences will be slightly lower than those previously examined for the general public.
Clearly, reaching out to large audiences makes it difficult to develop an in-depth dialogue
with all of them: the share of audience that is stimulated to develop a dialogue is therefore
inversely proportional to the size of the audience reached by massive coverage.
Moreover, dialogue is favoured by a continuous communication activity targeted to a

certain audience, which would guarantee better quality of both feedback and dialogue. In
the case of several activities targeting school audiences (A.2.1 to 13), the communication
175
builds on a quite constant pool of target students who learn to participate in dialogue on
various aspects of nanotechnology over the school years.
A similar situation is considered comparing television news lasting a few minutes and
reaching large audience figures (teasers of C.8, D.13, E.9, F.10), with longer, edited docu-
mentaries (features, A.1, B.9, full edition of C.8, D.13, E.9, F.10) that are often topped by
a 10-minute long talk show involving a non-expert audience, which should generate a
certain dialogue among viewers.
However, communication activities via television media require specific attention. In fact,
news can reach a larger audience on a bigger number of TV channels, targeting the news/
information segment: they are short, they can be produced in great quantity and they
address a very large number of topics and issues. News also has the added advantage of
fitting into a variety of programming slots easily. They are very versatile when handled
by multipliers and communication gateways, such as the Eurovision. On the other hand,
reportages in form of ‘teasers’ with a typical duration of three minutes can just bring
forward basic messages, and often do not have the strength to ‘go inside’ the message
they refer to. So TV news occupies a kind of grey area between straight information and
communication, depending on the way broadcasters use the footage.
In any case, there is a downside to longer, edited documentaries (features) packaged like
full-edition video footage and materials: they have a more limited audience, as they are
non-editable and they tend to impose a pre-defined editorial vision on broadcasters.
From this point of view, they have a much smaller market than news. As a consequence,
one should expect that the audience reached by fully edited documentaries will turn out
to be much smaller than the audience reached by news. Costs (documentaries are more
expensive to produce than straight news) and language (voiceovers need to be translated)
are additional difficulties. On the other hand, a long documentary can put the message
across much better, and explore many more angles of an issue with far greater accuracy.
According to these considerations, an adjustment formula has been applied to each of the
ten Video News Releases (VNRs) of NANO TV (an additional four of them, which will
target young people, are not taken into account here). This is meant to avoid an artificial
inflation of the VNRs’ audience. For instance, if we take Euronews as the leading gateway
for NANO TV distribution, we can safely say each four-minute VNR broadcast in eight
languages from a previous similar series reached an audience of 7 million people. Since,
on a weekly average, Euronews broadcasts the same video between 10 and 20 times
over, and since Euronews’ audience is known to have a high turnover, audience data of
any single VNR on a weekly basis dramatically increases up to an estimated 20-25 million
people, a figure which takes the audience correction factor into account already.
However, a significant share of the same audience on such an international gateway

(which is known to reach 244 million households) is overlapping and will be reached
almost ten times. Assuming that more broadcasts do generate increasing feedback and
dialogue within the same audience, this should guarantee an increased quality of the
176
expected feedback and dialogue. By applying the same adjustment formula to the whole
set of 10 VNRs and by taking these overlaps into account, we can estimate a total out-
reach of around 35 to 40 million people on Euronews only.
The Eurovision/EBU gateway, which is another distribution pillar of NANO TV, can reach
an average of eight national channels per VNR, accounting for an average audience of
about 3 million people each. These broadcasts are generally longer and closer to a talk
show approach. So the associated overall broadcasts of 14 VNRs can reach an estimated
audience of about 21 million people, if an audience overlap, as mentioned above, is taken
into account again.
Finally, the one-to-one distribution strategy (the third pillar of NANO TV media distribu-
tion) accounts for an average audience of about 3 million viewers per VNRs, bringing the
total estimated audience for broadcasts generated by this distribution channel to another
21 million people, according to the same correction pattern adopted for broadcasts gen-
erated by the Eurovision/EBU distribution.
Considering that the production and distribution of NANO TV’s videos will take place be-
tween 2009 and 2011, the total figures for television outreach over this whole period can be
prudently estimated at around 82 million people, as summarised in the following table.
177
Table 15. NANO TV annual outreach via television channels and gateways
(2009-2011) (2)
One-to-One
Distribution channels/ EBU/Eurovision communication to
gateways Euronews Worldfeeds TV networks
Estimated audience 20-25 million people Approx. 3 million people Approx. 3 million people
per item
Estimated audience 35-40 million people Approx. 21 million Approx. 21 million

per item (for approx. 60% of people people
delivered VNRs)
TOTAL AUDIENCE
Approx. 82 million people
(2009-2011)
Number of TV stations 1 (for approx. 60% From 5 to 10 (from youris. From 4 to 8 (from youris.
actually broadcasting of delivered VNRs) com historical series) com historical series)
Target News/Features Mostly News Mostly Features
Languages 9 (English, French, All, but depending All, but depending

German, Spanish, Italian, on downloads on contacts
Portuguese, Russian,
Arabic, Turkish)
Broadcasting time span 1 week Several months Several months

from distribution
Tracking of broadcasting Complete Complete up to 6 Complete for TV

weeks from satellite channels providing data
broadcasting

2
Personal
Communication from
Ing. Mario Martinoli,
coordinator NANOTV
178
5.2 Conclusions
This document presents the focus, objectives, methodology and actions to be developed
in the near future for the purpose of communicating the nanotechnology promise to a
public as wide as possible. This is just the beginning of a process with the final aim of
establishing a permanent, open, deliberative and instantaneous European-wide platform
on communication outreach and dialogue. And what a beginning it is. Apart from estab-
lishing a new model of communicating efficiently and effectively according to the real
needs of the public, a robust methodology has been put in place that will make it possible
to deliver messages to an estimated one hundred million EU citizens over three years
between 2009 and 2011, and receive feedback consequently.
By building on knowledge and awareness of nanotechnology, this Communication Road-

map comes forward with a whole system of organised mechanisms designed to prepare
the ground for very effective feedback and exchange with society. By placing European
citizens at the centre of attention, it tries to design a feed-back-feed-forward mechanism to
greatly enhance the EU’s policymaking efforts in promoting and safeguarding the future of
nanotechnology as a strategic tool for sustainable growth. It also aims to treat nanotechnol-
ogy as a critical component that is bound to bring to the fore people’s relationship with high
technology developments, by advancing the concept of sciento-technological democracy.
Having shaped the message with an appropriate architecture and packaged it within a
purposeful methodology, the task of delivering it has begun. From start-off experiences
within FP6, this Roadmap has moved on to identify communication, outreach and societal
dialogue initiatives within the current FP7, whose actions will last until 2013. Dedicated
projects from 2009 to 2011 focus on strategic audiences and ways of attaining them.
First, they will be targeting the young, whose role in future developments is considered
essential in building a sustainable economic model based on innovative nanotechnolo-
gies. This will happen via specific products (such as design-contests, live-lab experiences)
through schools, science centres and media.
Next, they will target the general public, which will be targeted by means of audiovisual,
press and Web media, i.e. movies, documentaries, teasers, clips, focus articles. The inter-
vention of journalists and knowledge multipliers will make sure that the information about
facts and evidence is comprehensible by an uninitiated audience, which also includes
students and new entrants to the nanotechnology profession.
Finally, a group of projects will be addressing business, scientists, NGOs and policymak-
ers through specific participatory events, workshops, videos and publications.
This way a complex subject can steadily be appreciated in its basic principles, where
eventually everyone will be pitching in by relying on their sense of identity and standing
in society. This will have the effect of creating trust and confidence, starting from the
179
young, who will engage in developing their own valid point of view based on scientific
facts while tackling problems on the basis of a continuously updated knowledge.
Nanotechnology will affect us all, but beyond nanoparticles, critical length scales, and
nanotools, European citizens will be able to see how all this science and technology will
influence their lives ahead of the actual developments.
The investment devoted to this by the EC is remarkable when considering the combined bud-
gets of all nano-related communication projects and their effective operational horizon.
As part of the 2005-2009 Nano Action Plan for integrated, safe and responsible nanotech-
nology, this investment fits well with the needs of other policy areas such as social and
regulatory, environmental and educational.
The findings of this Communication Roadmap, based on validated strategies, methods

and tools are to be used by all concerned, including Member States programmes. The
challenge is to structure a unique communication outreach and a public dialogue plat-
form covering the European Union and Associated States as well as international entities.
Since such findings are going to be implemented over the years 2009-2011, they provide
a seamless link to immediate and future plans for European advances in nanotechnology-
based innovations, products and economic growth.
Beyond any spontaneous enthusiasm or mistrust any such highly innovative scientific de-
velopment may bring, the fact that nanotechnology is becoming more and more deeply
embedded in today’s life should warrant a meaningful, conscientious communication
based on continuous participation and exchange between EU institutions and citizens.
The European Commission, as a major funding body, has recognised that taking the lead
to develop such a dialogue is one of its own moral responsibilities.
Out of this dialogue, desirable patterns should emerge. If the associated opportunities,
risks and uncertainties were properly addressed, all of us would surely be far closer to
the mark of reaching consensus. Every audience, be it young people, teachers, business,
organisations or, more broadly, the general public, will be increasingly called upon to get
involved at European, national and local levels. As a result, good governance through
inclusive policy debate will be promoted.
This consensus between stakeholders, society and policymakers on EC decision-making

about nanotechnology should hopefully be the first big result of this Communication Road-
map. This will ultimately increase both confidence and trust in the EC, and will strengthen
its image as an impartial, transparent and trustworthy communicator on nanotechnology.
180
ANNEX
Available free of charge from the Internet at
http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/publication_events.htm online.
Table of contents
EC funded projects on communication outreach and ancillary projects (FP6-FP7)......... 3
Survey across NMP National Contact Points on communication products.................... 15
Materials and methods ................................................................................................ 15
Analysis of the results ................................................................................................. 17
Figures and data .......................................................................................................... 19
Assessing outreach: measure of the TV media impact ................................................... 36
Assessing outreach: estimated measures of TV media impact ....................................... 42
Overall communication outreach (2009-2011)............................................................... 46
Essential bibliography..................................................................................................... 50
Extensive bibliography ................................................................................................... 53
EVENTS: .................................................................................................................... 53
BOOKS: ...................................................................................................................... 53
REPORTS:.................................................................................................................. 53
WEB LINKS: COMMUNICATION PLAN .............................................................. 54
WEB-LINKS on NANO DEBATE ............................................................................ 58
WEB LINKS: COMMUNICATION VEHICLES...................................................... 60
181
Acknowledgements
We are particularly grateful to those persons, inside and outside the European Institutions,
who contributed with their precious help, valuable inputs and very appreciated feedback
to both the conceptual and editorial development of this book.
Herbert von Bose, Christos Tokamanis, Renzo Tomellini, Rene Von Schomberg, Vladimir
Sucha, Bernardo Delogu, Cornelis Brekelmans, Michel Claessens, Georgette Lalis, Pat-
rick Vittet-Philippe, Karin Prawdzik, Laurent Bontoux, Philippe Martin, Eva Hellsten, Katja
Bromen, Mari Antonia Jimenez Nevado, Minna Sanchez, Adinda Focke, Peteris Zilgalvis,
Maurizio Salvi, Julia Acevedo Bueno, Sophia Fantechi, Luigi Amodio, Anne-Marie Bruyas,
Alessandra Zanazzi, Guglielmo Maglio, Ulrich Kernbach, Paul Hix, Lorenz Kampschulte,
Mario Martinoli, Elena Gaboardi, Ineke Malsch, Eleanor O’Rourke, Maria Chiara Aspden,
Yoel Rothschild, Vered Erlich, Martin Vogt, Fredrik Sebelius, Alexandr Prokop, Thomas Lau-
rell, Maria Chiara Carrozza, Christian Cipriani, Jurij Pavlica, Tom Kersevan, Sendi Mango.
European Commission
EUR 24055 — Communication Plan on Nanotechnologies
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2010 — 188 pp. — 17.6 x 25.0 cm
ISBN 978 92 79 13413 5

doi:10.2777/51159
How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;
• by contacting one of our sales agents directly. You can obtain their contact
details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352
2929-42758.
Free publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain
their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to
+352 2929-42758.
KI-NA-24055-EN-C
An appropriate social dialogue on nanotechnology needs
open-minded, consistent and even audacious communica-
tion aiming to bring everyone in. Good governance depends
on it, as the EC had already acknowledged robustly. The DG
RTD, Directorate Industrial Technologies, is now firmly set
to push this bold principle towards building a broad con-
sensus to support the EC’s policy on integrated, safe and
responsible nanotechnology.
So appropriate communication comes first, which must

outline whom to address, saying what and how, in order
to make people feel personally involved and eager to know
more. All these issues are analysed, structured and pack-
aged in chapters one to three under a new communication
model that relates to citizens’ concerns and needs.
Dialogue and engagement are the next, crucial phase. By

building on knowledge and awareness of nanotechnol-
ogy, this Communication Roadmap comes forward with a
whole system of organised mechanisms designed to prepare
the ground for very effective feedback and exchange with
society. This represents the contents of chapters four and
five which set out an ambitious scheme of implementation
measures that tests the communications model’s efficacy to
deliver its messages to millions of citizens.
This communication exercise is expected to have two major,

desirable effects: increasing the consensus between stake-
holders, society and policymakers on EC decisionmaking
about nanotechnology; and strengthening the image of the
EC as an impartial, transparent and trustworthy communica-
tor on nanotechnology.
Innovation and creativity are of the essence here, and in-

deed the EC wants nanotechnology to speak, as a priority,
the many expressive languages of web platforms, social net-
works, science centres, multi-platform media news or fea-
tures and the open dialogue between scientists and citizens.
On top of the conventional printed material, audiovisuals
and event-related materials, the EC is now looking with spe-
cial interest at the way art, design, music, theatre and films
could enrich the communication of technology.
In this sense, this Communication Roadmap feeds into the

philosophy and principles set out by the European Year of
Creativity and Innovation which has been its inspiration.
doi:10.2777/51159

Communicating Nanotechnology en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communicating Nanotechnology en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communicating Nanotechnology en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research policy

Interested in European research?

Directorate-General for Research, Technology and Development

Contact: Matteo BONAZZI

Why, to whom, saying what and how?

edited by the European Commission

Directorate-General for Research

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010

ISBN 978 92 79 1341 3 5

© European Union, 2010

Unit ‘Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies’

This publication can be downloaded free of charge from the Internet

Foreword: Herbert von Bose

Preface: Christos Tokamanis

Introduction: Matteo Bonazzi

Author: Matteo Bonazzi

Interviewer and editorial reviser: Kirsten De Victoria

Front page (concept): Matteo Bonazzi

Front page (design): BridA/Tom Kerševan, Sendi Mango, Jurij Pavlica

Everyone is quick to blame the alien.

You cannot have an appropriate social dialogue on nanotechnology without an open-

Involving Europeans in appropriate communication and dialogue is a real asset to the

The EC takes this whole communication effort on nanotechnology so seriously, that it

As creativity and innovation contribute to economic prosperity as well as to social and

The present Roadmap is a true ‘first’: no other Communication Roadmap on Nanotech-

PART I. WHAT IS IT FOR?

1.1 Nature of the topic 19

PART II. WHERE ARE WE NOW?

2.1 The current perception of nanotechnology 21

2.2 Key EC policy documents on

2.4 Key nanotechnologies to prioritise in communication 35

2.5 EC-funded projects on communicating

2.6 Assessing the EC-developed

2.7 Conclusions: future EC communication

PART III. WHERE DO WE WANT TO BE?

3.1 At a glance: The ‘Five Ws’ of nano-communication

3.3.2. Step 2: In charge of both nano research funding

PART IV. HOW DO WE GET THERE?

4.1 EC ‘Communication and Dialogue

4.2.4. New CORDIS nanotechnology EC web page and leaflet 122

PART V. WHERE and WHEN IS IT HAPPENING?

5.1 Outreach figures: discussion 174

1.1 Nature of the topic

1.2 Parameters of the topic

1.3 Analysing, targeting and

❍❍ Part I. WHAT IS IT FOR? The STRATEGY

Shaping the framework concept for designing the Communication Roadmap.

❍❍ Part II. WHERE ARE WE NOW? The ANALYSIS

Reviewing the most relevant communication literature and EC activities:

(i) current perception of nanotechnology;

❍❍ Part III. WHERE DO WE WANT TO BE? The TARGET

❍❍ Part IV. HOW DO WE GET THERE? The IMPLEMENTATION

Implementing the Communication Roadmap: define principles and guidelines; specify

❍❍ Part V. WHERE and WHEN? The SCHEDULE

Summarise the Communication Roadmap’s time and space coordinates of projects,

■■ EC policy documents (on principles, strategy and policy actions essentially);

■■ methodological research papers (on communication theory of science and

■■ on-field applicative research (on key areas of nanotechnology to be communicated);