Presentation to the

1

• Presentation to the
• 2nd Manchester International Workshop on
• Nanotechnology,
• Society and Policy
• 6-8 October 2009, University of Manchester, UK
• Sally Randles
• Dan Welch
• Christian Greiffenhagen
• University of Manchester
• Contact sally.randles_at_manchester.ac.uk

2
Nanoplat WP5 Distributed Governance and value
chains WP4 WP5 WP6
3

• WP4 Lessons via Reviews from Deliberative
  Processes
• WP5 Interviews with Active Actors
• Production-Consumption- Governance
• Value chains (cosmetics, textiles, food)
• Intermediaries
• NGOs
• Policy
• WP6 Development of Web-Platform for
  Deliberative Processes with these constituencies
  of Actors

4
WP4 Recap some key issues a) Upscaling
governance (to EU) whilst DPs remain small,
local, ad-hoc, focussed on Science-Soc relations,
poorly linked to policy/decision making, lack
longevity and formative learning,
experiments? b) Explore and trial use of
web-platform and ICT as a Complementary method
to earlier examples of DP (2nd generation DP,
appetite for reviews currently, eg US NSF
programme). Benefits Upscaling, Means of
engaging across borders and across
constituencies of actors
5
WP5

• Undertook 56 qualitative interviews across the
  Nanoplat partners, under EC FP7
• Production-consumption-governance actors
• Rich empirical material, by country, by actor
  variety, by sector gives value to the WP
  separate from situation between WP4, WP6
• multi-sectors
• constellation of actors
• At EU scale..
• Not done before

6
WP5

• Interview questionnaire/Template data capture 5
  sections
• Section 0 Background to respondent
  organisation and their role in the organisation.
• Section 1 Organisations Engagement with Nano?
• Section 2 Organisations Engagement with DP?
  (drawn widely to capture consultation methods of
  all kinds)
• Section 3 Triangulate Engagement with Nano and
  DP?
• Section 4 Prospective Futures,
• the next big issues a) Nano b) DP
• Section 5 Interest in being re-contacted about
  NANOPLAT (web-based tool) pilots? Interested in
  findings Brussels meeting?

7
Some considerations (1)

• Considering Nanoplat positioning vis-à-vis other
  DP. We have moved
• From abstract to concrete
• From general to specifics
• From bi-polar to plural
• From extremes to middle
• From long-term futures (20-50yrs) to mid-term
  (5-10years)

8
Some Considerations (2)

• Considering the place of DP in wider
• distributed governance
• distributed innovation
• and notions of responsibility vigilance from
  EU

9
Who will take the hot potato? (Beck) How do we
understand the relationship Distributed
Innovation
Distributed Governance
10

• Meta-Governance Jessop, 2002, The Future of the
  Capitalist State
• Governance - Mode of Accumulation pairings, so

Meta Governance
Schumpetarian Competition State
11
Jessop, 2002, 52 and Ch3
Heterarchy Involves the reflexive
self-organisation of independent actors involved
in complex relations of reciprocal
interdependence with such self organisation being
based on continuing dialogue and resource sharing
to develop mutually beneficial joint projects and
to manage the contradictions and dilemmas
inevitable in such situations Metagovernance Ente
rs here as social forces attempt to collibrate
(modify the relative balance among) various
governance mechanisms to modify their relative
importance Concerned with the overall
organisation and balancing of the different forms
of co-ordination of complex reciprocal
interdependence - _at_ heterarchic self-organisation
The Schumpetarian Competition State Its
distinctive form and functions are clearly linked
to the new configuration of contradictions ..
associated with the emergence to new
techno-economic paradigms associated with new
long-wave growth Different forms of
competition, different forms of competition
State currently emerging can be described as a
Schumpetarian Competition State because of its
concern with technological change, innovation and
enterprise and its attempts to develop new
techniques of government and governance to these
ends.
12

• (What is the potato?)
• Emergent Technologies?
• NanoScience and Nano Technologies (NN)
• Individual sectors, nano-mats, particles,
  compounds, technological applications?

13
Findings

• 56 Qualitative Interviews
• Approx 10 per partner select own within broad
  brief to seek overall coverage
• Analyse by
• Country (country background to experience with
  nano-, science to commercialisation and
  engagement/deliberations generally life-stage,
  but also different sub-sample profiles,
  intentionally, to match country profile and
  partner strengths)
• Actor group (production - (value-chain)
  industry fora), consumption - governance Govt
  depts, Regulation Agencies, Academic/experts,
  NGOs, media, insurance .
• By value chain (textiles, cosmetics, food, media,
  insurance)
• By level of engagement with a) Nano b)
  Deliberative processes c) Both, d) Future issues
  DP nano.

14
Eg for Germany/IOW
15
Nanoplat WP5 Interviews by actor group
16
UK/Manchester

• 3 Retailers (2 large supermarkets,Tesco, Co-op,
  one small sports-specialist independent)
• 2 Consumers/NGOs, Consumers Association (Which?
  Magazine), Responsible Nano-Forum
• 2 Govt Department of Food and Rural Affairs
  (Task Force 5, social and economic issues within
  cross Dept Nano-Research Co-ordination Group)
  Environment Agency (Executive Government role)
• 2 Industry networks (Nano-KTN, Nano IA)
• 1 Design consultant (textiles)

17
UK/ Manchester Actor Positions (1) Production
chain

• Retailers 2 Major supermarkets key governance
  position (potentially volunteer to take most
  precautionary stance to safeguard reputation and
  other 50,000 products). Currently undertaking
  audit of nano in all products. Including nano- on
  set of issues NOT to invest in (no negative
  responses).
• Small independent specialist retailer simply
  trusts the manufacturer brand for quality of new
  textiles technology refers to manufacturer
  specification.
• Textiles (design) Consultant concern for
  disposability/re-design and resale as new
  concept (vintage, aged look) . Expertise in
  Fashion/style, suggests the functions that nano-
  brings (crease-free) simply not stylish in some
  sectors (denims). Tech/market mis-aligned.
  Customers wouldnt value added functionality.
• Nano- Knowledge Transfer Network. Wide range of
  participants (industry-academic, and servies to
  nano-services industries eg clean-room
  facilities) Would welcome DP initiatives for
  members to participate in.
• Nano IA Trade Association. already upscaled (to
  Brussels). Member financed Next DPs tighter
  focus eg Not just Scientists but Young
  scientists. Deeply into Directives and Guidelines
  at level of cosmetics, chemicals, food etc. not
  only interested in Nanoplat pilot but willing to
  put-up a group to participate (And help formulate
  the topics?). Willing to (self- facilitate) a DP
  by web for members.

18
UK/Manchester

• Consumers Association (publishers of Which?
  magazine) very knowledgeable. Frustration with
  slow response to regulatory gaps by UK Govt. many
  deliberative exercises have come up with the
  same.
• Responsible nano-forum. Developing web nano and
  me mainly general public information-forum but
  with some stakeholder engagement exercises,
  some DEFRA UK Govt funding plus Foundation
  funding. Specifics eg Nano-Food Futures round
  table. Have aborted/passed over their trial
  Responsible nano-code. Face to face topic
  based industry/regulation debates eg nano- and
  food.
• Policy 1) Executive Agencies eg Environment
  Agency 2) Govt Dept (Dept Envt Food and Rural
  Affairs, Tasked with social and economic
  dimensions of Nano. Joint Ministerial Group
  oversees, bring together different Depts (Envt,
  Skills, Business). Interviewed DEFRA and
  Environment Agency charged with filling reg
  gaps AND DP overview via Task Force 5. Have moved
  recent work into CSR and Nano. Mood of reviews
  of value for money/added value here-forwards on
  DP following large number of local experiments.
  Interest in up-scaling. Prefer to see a focus on
  learning for policy/other Decisions. Some support
  for just democratic expression. Learnt to be
  more specific viz-aviz objective (eg influence
  scope of Research Councils nano-in health call)
  .Particular concerns re Nano-orphans
  Nano-divides. Next generation DP. DFRA/EA (and
  nano-KTN) see toxicology-lag as potentially
  most important issue. (BRE?) Reluctant to tighten
  regulation from laissez-faire/govt interference
  ideology.

19
UK/ Manchester

• Mood for review
• Historical first-mover on Nano and DP.
• Funders beginning to show funding fatigue, what
  impact/influence on decision making?
• How to upscale from Small/expensive local
  scale?
• Rationale What Relative merits for targeting
  funding? Eg UK Nano-divides? Toxicology?
• Fatigue, sodiscourse is continue for own
  sake/democracy versus mood for review of impact,
  influence and value for money

20
Norway/SIFO

• 3 Consumer Orgs (European Bureau of Consumers,
  Consumer Ombudsman Norway, Norwegian Cosnumer
  Council)
• 2 Govt/Safety. Department trade and industry
  health and product safety, food. Norwegian
  Scientific Committee for food safety.
• 1 environment safety/toxicology
  (Naturvernforbund)
• 1 Retailer (cosmetics)
• 1 Insurance (IF Insurance)
• 1 Academic (Bergen)

21
Norway/ SIFO

• Waiting Game
• Little attention paid to either nanotechnolgies
  or deliberative processes
• Exceptions Insurance (nano 4 on a list of 46
  emerging risks), consumer council following
  nano, competence on delib proc
• Foci Consumer NGOs, Cosmetics, Insurance.
• Country experienced in DP. Positive to promotion
  and practice of..
• Sector-level knowledge by regulatory bodies,
  policy and politicians of nano, is low.

22
Hungary/CEU
3 policy The Hungarian Food Safety Office,
National Office for Research and Technology,
Consumerss Protection Council 2 NGOs
Association of Conscious Consumers, Cromo
Foundation 1 RD Hungarian National Technology
Platform for Integrated Micro and Nanosystems 1
retailer Nanotol/Vital Care Line Bt. 1 industry
( 2 planned) UNILEVER TEVA, RICHTER 1 media
TV2
23
Hungary/CEU

• No interviewee had extensive experience with both
  nanotechnology and deliberative processes
  (learning curve)
• 5 interviewees had experience with nanotechnology
  and limited or no experience with deliberative
  processes
• 3 interviewees had experience with deliberative
  processes (one experience with organizing
  Citizens Juries) and no experience with
  nanotechnology
• 1 media

24
Hungary/CEU

• Early stage and interested
• To date Top-down approach to Nano
• Limited experience DP and Nano but interested in
  learning from others.
• Rationale democracy.
• Key sector micro-electronics (less on food).
  Generally, get down below the It of NN for
  country specificities.

25
Preliminary Reflections

• 1) Responsibility? No, .A Waiting game (no-one
  wants the hot potato? Little sense of
  immediacy/urgency now?)
• 2) Some possibility of industry
  leadership/engagement from Insurance and
  Retailers (much to lose commercially from a
  hi-consequence harmful event).
• 3) Combined with currently low level knowledge of
  the science and the issues, inc ethical issues of
  nano- and limited human resources to support the
  area. Retail Willingness to edit-out
  nano-enabled products rather than risk a
  hi-profile problem.
• 4) Curiosity Interested to participate in DP if
  not already very familiar with DP or similar (eg
  facilitated group discussion) exercises, diary
  keeping, returning questionnaires, back-up
  surveys etc as market research techniques
  technically similar, instrumentality and purpose
  different (market building/testing through
  consumer feedback, versus expression of
  democracy)
• 5) Desire to see more intelligent media
  reporting, media has an informing and
  vigilance/awareness-raising role also.
• 6) DP two axis differentiate countries a)
  propensity to engage in public participation DP
  (top-down, bottom-up) and b) life-stage learning
  and experience of DP, from little or no
  experience, Hungary top-down? all the way to
  mood of reviews possible scrutiny of added
  value nothing new emerging