Tag Archives: Nanologue

Europe’s science journalists inscribe a ‘nano declaration’ in Copenhagen (June 2014)

Every two years, Europe holds a science shindig called the EuroScience Open Forum (ESOF). The last one, which featured a ‘nano declaration’ just took place in Copenhagen (or Kopenhagen), Denmark from June 21 – 26, 2014. (You can find out more about the 2014 ESOF in my Feb. 19, 2014 posting in the context of a call for travel grant applications.)

The European Union of Science Journalists Associations has billed the outcome of their nano debate at the recent ESOF as a Copenhagen Declaration. That is a bit puzzling as there doesn’t seem to be any text for the declaration as per this July 15, 2014 news item on Nanowerk where it’s described as a science debate,

The science debate of the European Science Journalists EUSJA (European Union of Science Journalists’ Associations) revealed many severe misunderstandings and a profound lack of knowledge about nanotechnology, two decades after the topic first emerged. More detailed information and more dialogue is necessary, in particular a broader array of inclusive, participative and collaborative formats, above all in the early phases of research. This is the essence of the Nano Debate which may be summarized in 10 points. They comprise EUSJA’s COPENHAGEN DECLARATION.

Nanotechnology remains a research field with many promises.
In many fields such as graphene it has not been able to show its benefits for electronics.

One of the major reasons is that the scientific community is divided and the general public is only badly informed.

These deficits shall be resolved by establishing national and Europe-wide information centers which provide sound data bases with detailed information, as unanimiously agreed upon by stakeholders and the audience during the ESOF debate.

Transparency will be further enhanced if more nano-products are being labeled in a clear consumer language and at conspicuous places.

Regular and intensive stakeholder dialogues and polylogues are needed to bridge the gap among scientists and between research, industry and the general public including representatives of the civil society and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations].

A new participative culture of communication, dissemination and education which has been pondered for many years needs to be introduced at all levels of society.

With these conditions fulfilled, nano technology may after 20 years enter its 2nd phase, its realization and the exploitation of its full benefits, in close contact and consensus with the consumers, taxpayer, voters.

All in all, the nano example shows that the public needs to be engaged in the early phases of research, not only with nano technology, but in all fields of research, science and technology.

This new type of cutting edge science will empower Europe to compete globally and to reaffirm its number one position in world-class science.

And this is the background of the COPENHAGEN DECLARATION. The ESOF session “Expectations and Risks of Nanotechnology”, organized by the European Science Journalists EUSJA, … [emphasis mine]

Wolfgang C. Goede’s June 25, 2014 posting on the EUSJA website provides a description of the debate but not a text of the declaration,

International Rollout of the Science Debate@ESOF 2014 Kopenhagen. Major stakeholders and the public debated nanotechnology. After 20 years, our society still lacks knowledge about benefits and harm. The feedback of the roundtables showed that more dialogue and formats are needed. A respective resolution will be presented to the European Commission.

Four major stakeholders presented their views about ”Expectations and Risks of Nanotechnology”: Dr. Markus Lackinger, nano researcher representing Deutsches Museum (German Museum) and Technical University Munich TUM; Dr. Steffi Friedrichs, Nanotechnology Industries Association, Brussels; Dr. Lone Mikkelsen, Danish Ecological Council, Kopenhagen; Claus Jorgensen, Danish Consumers Council, Kopenhagen. The meeting was attended by some 60 participants of the Euroscience Open Forum 2014 Kopenhagen. The event was moderated by Barbie Drillsma, EUSJA president emeritus.

…

Why shall science journalists instigate this process? ”They have the knowledge, keep the distance and are observers of research”, Neubert [Hanns-J. Neubert, former chairman of the German Science Writers Association TELI] noted.

Lackinger agreed that science and media need to engage in more closely monitored feedback cycles. Unkeepable promises of science are often due to improper reporting and media hypes, he regretted. ”The right balance is the challenge”, he demanded. The physicist explained nanotechnology and used the example of carbon nanotubes.

…

After these presentations of five minutes each the moderator threw the ball at the roundtables. She [Drillsma] asked for a discussion of the topic after which a speaker should present three bullet points with comments, questions, concerns. During this phase the stakeholders went from table to table and made themselves available to answer arising questions. The individual debates got under way without the aid of a special moderator and were presented afterwards by roundtable speakers.

…

An overall wrap-up at the end of the nano debate was given by Menelaos Sotiriou, head of Science View Athens, organizer of science conferences and journalistic trainings in Greece, associated board member of the European Science Journalists EUSJA and its expert on EU projects. The debate in Kopenhagen showed that ”the public needs to be engaged from the early stages of research” he stated. Also young people and schools should be encouraged to participate.

The Horizon 2020 program of the EU will make funding for this type of public dialogue available. Furthermore he remarked that EUSJA is already partner of Nanodiode and will enhance the stakeholder engagement. Thus ”the public becomes a co-creator” of science, Sotiriou concluded.

A June 28, 2014 posting by Wolfgang C. Goede on the EUSJA website provides a more succinct summary but little more detail. As to the text for a declaration, perhaps I have failed to understand what the EUSJA meant by ‘declaration’ as that too is missing from Goede’s June 28, 2014 posting.

The debate itself didn’t uncover any new ideas or approaches although Sotriou’s ‘science co-creation’ is a term I haven’t seen previously in these discussions. Whether it will come to mean something new and innovative in the practice of science is (tongue in cheek) debatable.

In any event, Europeans have been exposed to many public dialogue and/or public engagement projects concerning nanotechnology. For example, Richard Jones in a March 17, 2005 posting on his Soft Machines blog describes two UK projects of the day and a June 14, 2011 posting here describes some then current European public engagement/dialogue projects. (The June 2011 posting features a mention of the Nanologue project which I believe was the first of its kind. It was a Europe-wide 2005-6 public dialogue project.) The questions that spring to mind are, how much money do you want to spend and to what purpose?

Teaching nanotechnology in Europe

Leave a reply

A May 12, 2014 news item on Nanowerk features an issue of Scientix Newsletter (May 2014), devoted to teaching and learning nanotechnology in primary and secondary school (Note: A link has been removed),

The May 2014 issue of the Scientix Newsletter (pdf) focuses on teaching and learning nanotechnology, and how to introduce it to primary and secondary school.

…

There are three parts in the newsletter, each presenting different type of materials or tools. The first two chapters directly address teaching practice: they cover introductory lessons on nanoscience and hands-on experiments.

You can also read an interview with Dr Luisa Filipponi from the Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Centre (iNANO) at Aarhus University in Denmark. Luisa has a PhD in nanotechnology, and an extensive experience in nanotechnology education in primary and secondary schools. We asked Dr Filipponi to present the school experiments she designed and share some tips how to engage students with nanotechnology.
The third chapter aims at researchers and project managers, developing new materials and activities in nanotechnology. The last part presents ongoing projects in nanotechnology education and outreach, their activities and events.

There is some interesting material in this 4pp. newsletter with the first page offering a brief history and overview of nanotechnology. I was a little more intrigued by their previous projects on p. 4,

Scientix projects on nanotechnology education
Ongoing:
• NanoDiode: Developing Innovative Outreach and Dialogue on responsible nanotechnologies in EU civil society, http://tinyurl.com/nanodiode
• NanoEIS: Nanotechnology Education for Industry and Society, http://tinyurl.com/nanoEIS
• Nanopinion – Monitoring Public Opinion on Nanotechnology in Europe, http://tinyurl.com/nanopinion
• Quantum Spin-Off: Connecting Schools with High-Tech Research and Entrepreneurship,
http://tinyurl.com/quantum-spinoff

Past:
• Nanologue: Europe-wide Dialogue on Social, Ethical and Legal Impacts of Nanotechnology,
http://tinyurl.com/nanologue
• Nanototouch: Nanosciences Live in Science Centres and Museums, http://tinyurl.com/nano2touch
• Global Excursion: Extended Curriculum for Science Infrastructure Online, http://tinyurl.com/global-excursion
• FET-House: Helping Young People Choose Science and Engineering Careers, http://tinyurl.com/fet-house
• Nanodialogue: Enhancing Dialogue on Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences in Society at the European Level, http://tinyurl.com/nanodialogue
• Time for Nano – Tools to Increase Mass Engagement for Nanotechnology, http://tinyurl.com/time4nano
• Nanochannels: Engaging and Debating Nanotechnology on Media Channels to European Citizens, http://tinyurl.com/nanochannels
• Nanoyou – Nano for youth, http://tinyurl.com/nanoyouth

You can find the whole May 2014 Scientix Newsletter here (PDF). As for Scientix itself, there’s this on the About Scientix page,

Scientix promotes and supports a Europe-wide collaboration among STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) teachers, education researchers, policymakers and other STEM education professionals.

In its first stage (2009-2012), the project built an online portal to collect and present European STEM education projects and their results, and organised several teacher workshops. The main networking event was the Scientix conference, held in May 2011 in Brussels.

The goal of the second phase (2013 – 2015) is to expand to the national level. Through the network of the National Contact Points (NCPs), Scientix aims to reach out to national teacher communities, and contribute to the development of national strategies for wider uptake of inquiry-based and other innovative approaches to science and maths education.

…

Scientix is financed under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development

That’s all I’ve got.

Europe’s Nanochannels starts its public dialogue project with a short survey

2 Replies

Nanochannels, last mentioned in my Jan. 27, 2011 posting, is a Europe-wide public engagement project. Announced in mid-January 2011, Nanochannels has now created a multi-language set of surveys for its first public engagement exercise. From the June 13, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

In one of the biggest nano-related public engagement exercises ever implemented, the Institute of Nanotechnology has now published online surveys in seven languages and is launching focus groups as part of the EC-funded NANOCHANNELS project. The project partners convened in a two-day intensive workshop at EuroNanoForum 2011, Budapest, to plan the next stages of a dynamic programme of communication, dialogue, and engagement in issues of nanotechnology (NT) aimed at European citizens.

…

Speaking at the NanoChannels workshop at EuroNanoForum 2011, Mark Morrison, CEO of the Institute of Nanotechnology, said: ‘This is one of the largest projects ever to examine the issues faced by all sectors of the wider public through specially designed tools of engagement. Not only will the project enable us to gauge public opinion, it will also inform us of the tools that prove to be the most effective for communication within specific sectors. These dialogue tools can then be adopted to help build public consensus on advanced technologies and inform European Union policy.’

You can participate by filling out a short survey,

English: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NanoChannels_EN

French: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NanoChannels_FR

German: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NanoChannels_DE

Hebrew: http://bit.ly/nanosurvey

Italian: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NanoChannels_IT

Romanian: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NanoChannels_RO

Spanish: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NanoChannels_ES

Alternatively, make your opinion heard through the mini poll on The Guardian newspaper’s microsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/nanotechnology-world

I wonder why they don’t mention the Nanologue, a European Union nanotechnology public engagement project completed in 2004. It seems logical to build on work that was done previously unless institutional memory has failed and work is being started from the beginning, again. ETA June 15, 2011: Nanoclast blogger, Dexter Johnson provides more insight into the relationship between Nanochannels and other European nanotechnology public engagement exercises in his June 15, 2011 posting,

Since I was in the meeting at EuroNanoForum in which the outreach program [Nanochannels] was discussed, I can confirm that a dreary recap was provided of the Nanologue project. The extent to which this data informed the new project was hard to discern from the near-comatose expression on the face of the audience.

But moving on, in addition to Nanologue there was ObservatoryNANO that was supposed to inform government, industry and finance decision makers about issues pertaining to nanotechnology and in doing so often provided unintended guffaws.

Dexter goes on to provide more context to this current Nanochannels outreach project and a brief comment about current US public consultation efforts.

FrogHeart

Commentary about nanotech, science policy and communication, society, and the arts

Tag Archives: Nanologue

Europe’s science journalists inscribe a ‘nano declaration’ in Copenhagen (June 2014)

Teaching nanotechnology in Europe

Europe’s Nanochannels starts its public dialogue project with a short survey