It’s startling to contrast the approach to communicating about nanotechnology taken in Canada with the approaches taken in the UK and in Europe (and to a lesser extent in the US). There has been little discussion or attempt in Canada (for an example, see my post with the Health Canada response to questions about public participation and other issues relating to nanomaterials) to open a dialogue with the public or even designated ‘stakeholders’, although arguably citizens/the public are also stakeholders. There has been no discussion (other than an occasional meeting with designated stakeholders), no outreach, no public engagement about an emerging technology, nanotechnology, that shows signs of having a very comprehensive impact on life as we know it on this planet.

At least some of the issues with this lack of communication can be traced to geography (e.g., someone living in Newfoundland can fly to the UK in less time than it takes to get to Vancouver or the other side of the country and it’s cheaper too) and the social culture (or mindset) which has grown out of that reality. We have isolated pockets of development and our major cities are often thousands of kilometres apart with only thinly populated areas in between. Historically, communication across Canada has been challenging and even now that 4.5 hour time difference between Vancouver and Newfoundland can have a profound impact if you’re trying to connect with your family in realtime. As for the north/south divide in the country I can’t really speak to it other than to point out that it too presents challenges.

In addition, our scientists have done little to communicate with each other let alone with the public to stimulate interest in the sciences generally and this effect can be felt with emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. (Yes, there are efforts but not many of them.)

Our political parties (my Jan. 16, 2010 posting) show scant interest in including science policies in their political platforms. (see my posting about the Shadow Cabinet Science Ministers) You can contrast this with the situation in the UK where scientists have an organization Campaign for Science and Engineering (CASE) which monitors and adds to the science discussion during elections and at other times (see my posting about  CASE and the British Election).

Institutional barriers are common everywhere but with the current party in power there seems to be a  move towards deliberate secrecy. I’ve posted a number of times about the Environment Canada ban against direct contact between media and scientists (March 23, 2010 posting where there’s mention of the ban in a UK newspaper) and its probable impact on all the government agencies. With all of this taken into account, it can safely be said that Canadians are unaware of nanotechnology and are being kept unaware.

Europe and the UK stand in stark contrast with various public dialogue and public engagement projects and easily accessed governmental and nongovernmental reports. While the US appears to be lagging behind in these kinds of efforts, there is work being done, although I do have to say that there appears to be an excessive focus on how to get the US public to accept nanotechnology. Take for example this from a recent news item on Nanowerk,

“The survey suggests that researchers, industries and policymakers should not be afraid to display the risks as well as the benefits of nanotechnology,” says Dr. Michael Cobb, an associate professor of political science at NC State who conducted the survey. “We found that when people know something about nanotechnologies for human enhancement, they are more supportive of it when they are presented with balanced information about its risks and benefits.”

The survey was conducted by Cobb in collaboration with Drs. Clark Miller and Sean Hays of ASU [Arizona State University], and was funded by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU. [emphases mine]

In the US they seem to run more polls and surveys and these are intended to measure awareness and/or acceptance of nanotechnology. They also have funded two Centers for Nanotechnology in Society as well as other, smaller projects. A 2005 news item for California Science and News,

The ASU center is the largest in a network of newly funded NSF activities on nanotechnology and society, including a second center at University of California-Santa Barbara and additional projects at Harvard University and the University of South Carolina. The network will support research and education on nanotechnology and social change, as well as provide educational and public outreach activities and international collaborations. [emphases mine]

We have nothing comparable to these centres in the US or to the UK and European outreach projects I mentioned earlier in this posting.

To answer my own question, why not? It’s a combination of history, culture, and a deliberate attempt to sidestep any possible opposition to introducing nanotechnology research and its products to Canadians. As the survey and the recent UK House of Lords report on nanotechnology and food (my Jan. 7, 2010 posting with further links) suggest, that could backfire.