**2008 NSF Grantees Meeting on**

**Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology**

28-29 July 2008

Summary and Agenda

**Summary**

The Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology 2008 Grantees Meeting was held
at the National Science Foundation 28-29 July 2008. The meeting was
funded by the Social, Behavioral, and Economics and Engineering
Directorates. A total of 30 PIs and co-PIs participated in the meeting
representing 22 NSF funded projects that address ethical, legal, social,
and political dimensions of nano-science and nanotechnology.

In 2008, over \$4.1 million of NSF funding was directed to research on
societal dimensions of nanotechnology. More than \$1.8 million of this
funding was committed by the SBE directorate with the remaining \$2.3+
million coming from other NSF directorates. About half of these funds
support two societal dimensions NSECs at Arizona State University and
the University of California, Santa Barbara. These two centers along
with other NSF funded projects form a cohesive network of
interdisciplinary researchers focused on societal dimensions research
and education and engagement with stakeholders and the public. This
network has maintained strong collaborative ties with EU nanotechnology
and society scholars.

The 2008 meeting was devoted to a range of topics reflecting current
research concerns. The meeting was divided into three major topical
areas: historical precedents and the capacity for upstream or midstream
shaping of nanoscience and nanotechnology; public perceptions, risk
communication, and media representations of nanotechnology; and issues
related to globalization, ethics, and governance.

The first topic focused on the methodologies and historical precedents
that might be used to help shape nanoscience and nanotechnology toward
socially desirable ends and to reduce potential risks. These
methodologies include real time technology assessment that, among other
things, places social scientists in close proximity to natural
scientists and engineers to collectively build capacity for socially
desirable nanotechnology development. One speaker noted the need for
safety and ethical standards within firms that manufacture or handle
nano materials. Another emphasized the use of the precautionary
principle as a means for dealing with health, safety, and environmental
risks posed by new nanomaterials.

Several areas of research need to be pursued on this topic. More
research is needed on the particular organizational and cultural
arrangements that most effectively build capacity for strong social
science and natural science and engineering collaborations engaged in
nano research and development and other emerging technologies. More work
is also needed on the development of standards for a wide range of
nanomaterials. The potential risks of some nanotechnologies serve as a
barrier to development until broadly acceptable standards are adopted.
Standardization is a research topic where social scientific research is
necessary but not sufficient. More collaboration with natural scientists
and engineers and with legal scholars is necessary in this area.
Presenters also noted the barriers for social scientists and ethicists
in working with industry both to assist in the development of new
nanotechnologies and identifying safe working conditions and ethical
conduct. Better collaborations need to be forged and further research is
needed on the types of arrangements that work most effectively.

The second topic focused on the flow of information to the public
through the media and formal and informal education and on public
knowledge and perceptions of nanotechnology. Research results suggest
that the media do not yet have a significant effect on raising public
consciousness of nanotechnology. One speaker emphasized the importance
of anchoring principles as they emerge in the media. If they are
positive, they will create a positive anchor for nanotechnology among
the public. Another speaker presented results of public surveys.
Researchers have identified variation between scientists and the public
in their perceptions of risk. The public perceives slightly more risk in
all areas (e.g., loss of privacy, loss of jobs) with the exception of
pollution and health risks where scientists perceive more risk. Overall,
this research indicates that there is relatively little current concern
about potential nanotechnology risks among the public.

There are a variety of formal and informal educational experiences
currently supported by NSF. Formal educational efforts have focused on
developing capacity for integrating social science and natural science
and engineering students in joint projects. This emphasis on
interdisciplinarity is considered key to building capacity for socially
acceptable and desirable development of nanotechnology. Informal
educational efforts are focused on development of nanoscience and
nanotechnology museum exhibits and the development of public forums and
cafes for discussion of nano-related topics.

Key research questions remain in this area. We still know relatively
little about the representation of science and technology on the
internet and its overall impacts. Studies have tended to focus on the
print media and television. One speaker also emphasized the need for
more experimental work on the effects of the media. Further research
also is needed on risk perceptions and deliberative formats where the
public is disaggregated. There is some preliminary evidence about the
significance of gender, ethnicity, and religion in perceptions of risk
and general acceptance of emerging technologies. There also was some
discussion about efforts to engage the public in deliberative democracy
exercises about emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. One
speaker raised questions about the degree of artificiality of these
sites and whether they involved free discussion and true deliberative
democracy. This question is not yet settled and research needs to be
attuned to cultural and international differences in the effectiveness
of different deliberative arrangements. Also, the chosen method needs to
be closely linked to the desired outcome -- to build general capacity
for public engagement or to specifically engage the public with a
decisionistic objective.

The third topic focused on global issues related to nanotechnology
development and diffusion and on ethical and governance issues. One
presenter discussed the existence of "nano-districts" where research and
commercialization are concentrated in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. NSF
has funded research and educational activity to improve the
nanotechnology workforce in the U.S. These efforts might benefit by
being closely matched with established and emerging nano-districts.

Comparisons of nanoscience and nanotechnology development in the U.S.
and China indicate that there has been a rapid increase in China, but it
does not match the quality of U.S. research as measured by rates of
citation. Patents tend to be centered in Chinese universities rather
than industry with the opposite in the U.S. Overall, research indicates
that China is making rapid progress on nanoscience and nanotechnology,
but has not yet reached the level of the U.S. and EU.

Research on ethics indicates some unique characteristics of
nanotechnology that distinguish its ethical dimensions from other
emerging technologies such as synthetic biology. One speaker focused on
applications of nanotechnology to human enhancements and the blurred
lines that develop between human therapy and human enhancement. This
type of application also may create the conditions where we have less
human empathy toward others as more human limitations appear fixable.
One speaker suggested that we need also to be aware of who is doing the
"ethics work," as it relates to nanotechnology more generally and the
development of standards more particularly. Who has a seat at the table
in standard setting and the extent to which this choice is based on
users and workers who bring local knowledge about ethics and values
versus more formal, professional work on ethics bears study.
Pedagogically, we find much NSF supported work at developing ethics
education in programs that involve nanotechnology and other emerging
technologies. Although the quality from institution to institution will
vary, NSF support for these activities is solid.

Participants agreed that much additional research and development is
needed in the area of nanotechnology policy, regulation, and oversight.
Collectively, speakers felt that the capacity for governance was
lacking. Two focal points seem important in this research. 1) There may
be historical models that have relevant oversight experiences for
nanotechnology. These may be usefully tapped to generate
recommendations. 2) There is need for more coordination between federal
and state governments and between agencies in the development of policy
to stimulate development and to regulate nanotechnology. One speaker
felt that nanotechnology and other emerging technologies provide a good
opportunity to rethink how we regulate. Comparative studies were
recommended that would look at federal, state, and perhaps local
interactions in science and technology policy across several areas of
emerging technologies.

Overall, it appears that some excellent research is being conducted on
global diffusion, ethics, and governance issues. However, the research
problems are large and diverse and there are still relatively few
scholars engaged in this work. There also is a need for better
coordination between research on current federal and state
nanotechnology development and regulatory capacity and the more
bottom-up research that engages in deliberative democracy exercises and
discussion with various publics.

Agenda

Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology

2008 Grantees Meeting

National Science Foundation

**28-29 July 2008**

**Stafford I, Room 375**

**4201 Wilson Blvd.**

**Arlington, VA 22230**

**Monday, 28 July**

7:45 A.M Coffee and Light Refreshments

8:15 -- 8:45 Welcoming Remarks, Review of Agenda, and Administrative
Information

Rita Teutonico, Advisor for Integrative Activities, SBE

David Lightfoot, Assistant Director, SBE

Stephen Zehr, Program Officer, Science, Technology & Society, SBE

**Setting the Agenda:**

8:45 -- 9:45 Historical Context for Nanotechnology

Moderator:

Sandip Tiwari (Cornell University)

Panelists:

Cyrus Mody (Rice University)

Woody Kay (Northeastern University)

Mihail Roco (NSF)

9:45 \-\-- 10:00 Break

10:00 -- 11:15 Capacity for Upstream Shaping of NanoScience and
Nanotechology

Moderator:

Chris Bosso (Northeastern University)

Panelists:

David Guston (Arizona State University)

Vivian Weil (Illinois Institute of Technology)

Nathan Swami (University of Virginia)

11:15 -- 12:00 Breakout Session -- Discussion of Upstream Work

12:00 -- 1:00 Working Lunch -- International Collaboration

Mark Suskin, NSF, Office of International Science & Engineering

1:00 -- 1:45 Reports from morning discussion groups

**Public Perceptions, Risk Communication, and Knowledge:**

1:45 -- 3:00 Media Representations of Nanotechnology

Moderator:

Michael Lynch (Cornell University)

Panelists:

David Berube (North Carolina State University)

Dominique Brossard (University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Susanna Priest (University of Nevada, Las Vegas)

3:00 -- 3:15 Break

3:15 -- 4:30 Formal and Informal Nanotechnology Education

Moderator:

Michael Lee (NSF, Division of Materials Research)

Panelists:

Lawrence Bell (Museum of Science, Boston)

David Guston (ASU)

Barbara Harthorn (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Melinda Wong (Northwestern University)

4:30 -- 6:00 Public Understanding of Nanotechnology and Risk Perception

Moderator:

Eric Lindquist (Texas A&M University)

Panelists:

Elizabeth Corley (Arizona State University)

Pat Gehrke (University of South Carolina)

Richard Barke (Georgia Tech)

Michael Dixon (University of South Carolina)

Barbara Harthorn (UCSB)

Evening Dinner on your own

**Tuesday, 29 July**

7:45 -- 8:15 Coffee and Light Refreshments

**Global Issues, Ethics, and Governance:**

8:15 -- 9:30 The Nano-Enterprise: Global and Regional Issues

Moderator:

Allan Silverman (Ohio State)

Panelists:

Jan Youtie (Georgia Tech)

Paul Hallacher (Penn State)

John Trumpbour (Harvard Univ.)

Mark Tuominen (University of Massachusetts)

9:30 -- 10:45 Ethics and Cultural Values in Nanotechnology Research and
Development

Moderator:

Kevin Elliot (Univ. of South Carolina)

Panelists:

Debra Mathews (Johns Hopkins University)

James Moor (Dartmouth College)

John Stone (Michigan State)

10:45 -- 11:00 Break

11:00 -- 12:15 Nanotechnology Policy, Regulation, and Oversight

Moderator:

Jordan Paradise (University of Minnesota)

Panelists:

Chris Bosso (Northeastern)

Susan Wolf (University of Minnesota)

Paul Hallacher (Penn State)

12:15 -- 2:00 Working Lunch: Break Out Group Discussion on National and
International Problems of Governance

2:00 -- 2:45 Reports from Discussion Groups

2:45 -- 3:00 Break

**Summary and Discussion of Future Research Priorities:**

3:00 -- 4:45 Summarization of key points from each session by moderator

Discussion of research gaps and future priorities