Publication date: November 2005

Summary
A team at the Centre for Environmental Risk in the School of Environmental Sciences, at UEA have been analysing and reflecting upon Nano Jury UK as it has been taking place. Their research concentrated on the processes of the jury and the jurors' experiences. This document sets out the preliminary findings on what has occurred so far.

Publication date: November 2005

Summary
Dr Douglas Parr of Greenpeace shares his reflections on Nanojury UK, the first attempt to give ordinary members of the UK public a voice in relation to the development of this very wide-ranging technology. Dr Parr argues that the implications of the findings of Nanojury reach far into not just science and innovation policy in UK, but also the political model of economic resource deployment which underpins the technology commercialisation process.

Publication date: November 2005

Summary
NanoJury UK has brought together 15 randomly-chosen people from different backgrounds in a particular region of the UK, to hear evidence about a wide range of possible futures, and the role that nanotechnologies might play in them.

The jury has sought to provide a vehicle for peoples views on nanotechnologies to have an impact on policy. It has allowed a dialogue between people with diverse perspectives and interests, and created a democratic space in which citizens can examine the hopes, aspirations, assumptions and fears of those working to develop and regulate nanotechnologies.

Publication date: November 2005

Summary
This report focuses on the event at which jurors from the West Yorkshire Community Jury reported their preliminary recommendations for discussion by a range of groups representing a broad range of interests in the UK and beyond.

Publication date: September 2005

Summary
An independent citizen's jury has delivered its verdict on nanotechnology after five weeks debating the emerging technology. NanoJury UK has called for greater public say and increased clarity as well as more emphasis on health, equity and environmental protection when developing the technology.

Solar power

More emphasis on health, equity and environmental protection

21 Septembre 2005 - An independent citizen's jury has delivered its verdict on nanotechnology after five weeks debating the emerging technology. NanoJury UK has called for greater public say and increased clarity as well as more emphasis on health, equity and environmental protection when developing the technology.

Nanotechnologies are predicted to generate sales of $1 trillion by 2015, and could affect every sphere of our lives including healthcare, computers, consumer gadgets, energy, defence and food. The citizen's panel has asked that at key stages research should get further public scrutiny to "ensure that particular technologies met human and environmental needs... not just make short term profits."

NanoJury UK, was held in Halifax, Yorkshire during the spring and summer 2005. It was sponsored by the IRC in Nanotechnology University of Cambridge [1], Greenpeace UK, the Guardian and the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre of the University of Newcastle. A citizens' jury is like a legal jury in that they give a 'verdict' after being presented with information and perspectives from a range of different witnesses, then discussing the evidence amongst themselves [2].

The jury 'verdict' is made up of 20 recommendations all provisional given that knowledge can continue to evolve. Ten recommendations received majority support from jury members:

• A committee of public and representitives of a range of social groups and faiths should decide when, at key stages in technology development, public juries should be set up to look at public research spend. Public juries should also have a roll in private research money to look at the ethical and social/environmental impacts.
  
  
• If public money is spent, it should go on solving longer-term issues such as health and environmental problems. There should be incentives and strings attached for the private sector.
  
  
• More openness on spending of public research money on nanotechnology.
  
  
• Government should set up partnerships with nations leading in technologies that can improve health. New safe and effective nano-medicines should be available without discrimination.
  
  
• Government grants for development, manufacture and use of solar energy technologies.
  
  
• More consultation and information in plain English.
  
  
• Support for nanotechnologies that bring jobs to UK.
  
  
• Nanotechnlogies will only be good if they lead to more quality leisure time.
  
  
• Manufactured nanoparticles should be tested as if they were a new substance, labelled in clear English, and tested in controlled environments before release.
  
  
• Scientists should improve their communication skills and encourage schoolchildren into a career in science.

The jurors heard from witnesses selected after consultation with the Oversight Panel [3] and the Science Advisory Panel, hearing evidence about the potential applications, opportunities, challenges and risks of nanotechnologies. The government has committed to respond to the NanoJury UK findings.

Countries around the world are racing to get an early advantage in the field of nanotechnology. However, the priorities and emphasis of the uses to which nanotechnologies may be put has previously been little discussed in the public domain. These are highly political questions, but ones from which elected national governments and political parties have traditionally kept away, even though social science research indicates they formed part of the UK public antipathy towards GMOs.

Greenpeace's Chief Scientist Doug Parr said:

"We endorse the NanoJury call for research spending emphasis on environmental protection, health and renewable energy. We hope that NanoJury will make government, industry, research councils and researchers reflect on what they do, and publicly justify what they are hoping to achieve and why."

Mark Welland from the University of Cambridge Nanoscience Centre said:

"From the perspective of the IRC in Nanotechnology the Nanojury UK has been a great success. We were concerned from the start that the process should be managed and executed to the highest standards and all evidence we have so far seen from all those associated with it fully endorse this. We hope that Nanojury UK will act as both a catalyst and a model for further public engagement activities as part of the responsible advancement of all new technologies."

TomWakeford from PEALS said:

"The jurors have got a grip on the complexities and uncertainties of nanotechnology to an extent that will surprise those who are sceptical about the value of public engagement. I would encourage such people to come and meet them at the launch and see the film they helped make."

For more information contact:

Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255 or Chief Scientist Doug Parr 0207 865 8240

Prof. Mark Welland from Cambridge University Nanoscience Centre via Corina Hadjiodysseos, University of Cambridge Press Office 01223 765542

Members of the jury an be contacted via Tom Wakeford 079661 70713, or Bano Murtuja on 01254 290244

Notes:

[1] Interdisciplinary Research Centre in Nanotechnology at the University of Cambridge

[2] Further information on the Nano Jury UK methodology is available from www.nanojury.org.

[3] The Oversight Panel for the Nano Jury UK process:

Rebecca Willis, Green Alliance (chair)
Mark Welland/Robert Doubleday, Cambridge University Nanoscience Centre
Doug Parr, Greenpeace
Tom Wakeford/Jaz Singh, PEALS, University of Newcastle
Simon Rogers, The Guardian
Adrian Butt, Department of Trade and Industry/Office of Science and Technology
Monica Winstanley, BBSRC
Richard Jones, University of Sheffield
Nick Pidgeon/Tee Rodgers-Hayden, University of East Anglia
Jim Thomas, ETC Group
Paul Atherton, Nanoventures
Hugh Robertson, TUC

The Science Advisory Panel is:

Richard Jones, University of Sheffield
Saul Tendler, University of Nottingham
Tim Jones, Imperial College
Kevin Matthews, Oxonica
Ken Donaldson, University of Edinburgh
Andy Stirling, University of Sussex