D2.4 Training Report - irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com · NANO2 TRAINING REPORT | DELIVERABLE D2.4 ALL •SOCIETAL ENGAGEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE NANOTECHNOLOGY 2 Deliverable number: D2.4

TRAINING REPORT | DELIVERABLE D2.4

NANO2ALL • SOCIETAL ENGAGEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE NANOTECHNOLOGY

1

D2.4 Training Report



2

Deliverable number: D2.4

Deliverable name: Training Report

WP / WP number: 2

Delivery due date: Project month 32 (31/05/2018)

Actual date of submission: 29/05/2018

Dissemination level: public

Lead beneficiary: MALSCH

Responsible scientist/administrator: Ineke Malsch

Estimated effort (PM): 2.5

Internal reviewer: Coordinator



3

Changes with respect to the DoA

The report covers not only the training of the participants in the dialogues organised during the project Nano2All, but also other self-study

opportunities offered to other stakeholders and users of the Nano2All website, previously foreseen as webinars for the participants. The

scope is therefore slightly different than foreseen in the DoA, but still comparable.

Dissemination and uptake

All partners, the EC project officer, and stakeholders interested in learning about responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology.

Short Summary of results (<250 words)

In the Nano2All project, training has been offered to all participants in the national and EU dialogue workshops. This report presents the

materials developed and how these have been incorporated in the programmes and background materials for these dialogues. In addition,

training materials and background information relevant to other interested stakeholders have been offered to any user of the Nano2All

website. The report presents these materials and preliminary data on use until the submission of this report (Month 32).

Evidence of accomplishment

Report and training materials on the website.



4

CONTENTS

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1. Context of the report .................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2. Aims and scope of the report ....................................................................................................................... 8

1.3. Contents of each chapter ............................................................................................................................. 9

2. Training the citizens .............................................................................................................................. 11

2.1. Design ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

2.2. Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 11

2.3. Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 20

3. Training participants in national stakeholder dialogues .................................................................... 24

3.1. Design ........................................................................................................................................................ 24

3.2. Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 24

3.3. Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 39

4. Training offered to users of Nano2All website .................................................................................... 41

4.1. Design ........................................................................................................................................................ 41

4.2. Implementation .......................................................................................................................................... 42

4.3. Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 53

5. Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................... 54



5

1. Introduction



6

1. Introduction

1.1. Context of the report

This report presents the training activities organised in the Nano2All project. The objectives of the Nano2All project

are:

1. To establish a European-wide sustainable platform for mutual learning, informed dialogue and societal

engagement in responsible nanotechnology

2. To perform a series of multi-stakeholder training activities to address knowledge gaps between various

types of actors and to develop a shared understanding of the benefits and risks of advancing responsible

nanotechnology via constructive multi-stakeholder dialogues

3. The systemic engagement of civil society, social sciences and humanities and industry groups and

researchers in nanotechnologies

4. To suggest evidence-based recommendations and develop a roadmap to enhance societal engagement

in responsible nanotechnology

Prior to the start of the project, we envisaged that participants in the dialogues organised in the project would have

different gaps in knowledge on nanotechnology, responsible research and innovation, foresight and effective

dialogue methodologies. We assumed that it would be important to create a level playing field, where lay citizens

would feel comfortable discussing with high level experts on an equal basis. This incongruent need for capacity

building was addressed by developing a modular set of training materials, and by developing a simple online

training needs survey1 (c.f. figure 1).

Figure 1: the survey on training needs for dialogue on responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology

included questions to locate the person in the dialogue process, and to establish his or her self-assessed level of

familiarity with nanotechnology, responsible research and innovation (RRI), dialogue methods and foresight.

We tested this survey on two stakeholder communities: science journalists on the EUSJA mailing list (10

responses)2, and industrialists and researchers participating in the Nanofutures Association (31 responses).3 The

1 Embedded in: http://nano2all.eu/training 2 http://www.eusja.org/ 3 http://nanofutures.eu/

http://nano2all.eu/training

http://www.eusja.org/

http://nanofutures.eu/



7

combined results of the surveys among science journalists and among Nanofutures members are depicted in figure

2.

Figure 2: summary of outcomes of the surveys of training needs among science journalists and Nanofutures

members.

The complete analysis of both surveys is included in Nano2All D2.2 (2016). As a result of these surveys, we

adapted the training needs self-assessment tool only slightly, making a distinction between theoretical knowledge

of the concept Responsible Research and Innovation (among social scientists and humanists) on the one hand,

and practical experience in implementing responsible research and innovation (among natural scientists and

engineers). This adapted survey, along with background information about earlier relevant dialogues, and a list of

relevant materials and information resulting from earlier projects, is included in Nano2All D2.3 (2016).

During the S.NET 2016 conference, in Bergen (Norway) on 13 October 2016, we discussed different interpretations

of the concept ‘responsibility’ and the usefulness of different dialogue methodologies with six social scientists and

humanists interested in nanotechnology and emerging technologies. Even in such a small and relatively

homogeneous group, interpretations differed considerably. Some participants associated ‘responsibility’ with new

trends in regulation, moving from government to governance of nanotechnology, through ‘soft laws’, voluntary

codes of conduct, etc. Others linked it to recent developments in open innovation, citizen science and Do-It-Yourself

technology, aiming to create responsible nanotechnology ‘by design’. From a security perspective, the Do-It-

Yourself movement might introduce new risks for society at large. The flip-over depicted in figure 3 summarises

the discussion in key words.



8

Figure 3: Flip-over sheet depicting the outcome of the discussion on the concept ‘responsibility’ at S.NET 2016.

1.2. Aims and scope of the report

The present report summarizes the design, implementation and results of the training activities undertaken in WP2

and WP3. Originally, the objectives and scope of the training activities were included in the task description as

presented in box 1.

Task 2.4 Preparing for the Dialogues I Duration: M11-M24 | Task Leader: Malsch

The objective of this task is to prepare the stakeholders representatives for the Dialogues by ensuring a common

understanding and a common language among them via the receipt of customised training. Evaluations to be

performed after the dialogues to help “calibrate/fine tune” the training. The training will be provided mainly as

webinars (except for citizens who will undertake face-to-face training) and overall the programme will focus on

tools and concepts on RRI and co-production of knowledge.

Box 1: Description of task 2.4 according to the Nano2All work plan.

As the Nano2All project evolved, the dialogue methodology we selected turned out to be less dependent on

separate training of the participants prior to their engagement in discussions. Instead, participants have been

offered integrated capacity building materials during the dialogue activities. This dialogue process consisted of



9

three stages. The first stage consisted of citizens’ dialogues, organised by science centres in six countries: France,

Italy, Israel, Poland, Spain and Sweden. These half-day events were organised in April-May 2017. The participants

were offered information introducing nanotechnology for one of three specific applications. These included a

background sheet and introductory information on nanomedicine, nanotechnology for smart textiles and

nanotechnology in Brain-Computer Interfaces. The science centres translated the materials in the national

language and offered them to the participants.

The second stage consisted of six national stakeholder dialogues in the same countries, in October 2017 –

February 2018. The partner responsible for the training produced raw materials on a common responsibility for

nanotechnology, role responsibilities for six distinct groups of stakeholders, and five illustrative cases.4 The science

centres adapted this raw material to their specific needs and translated it in the language of the dialogue. They

took care of offering it to the participants as an integrated training component, taking the form of a reflection

exercise. For participants who were interested to learn more, or other users of the Nano2All website, videos and

short information materials resulting from other dialogue projects on nanotechnology were offered via the training

section of the website.5 In addition to materials from earlier projects, the project coordinator posted five webinars

online, discussing dilemmas in responsible nanotechnology research and innovation. Three case studies were

relevant to the three topics discussed in the national dialogues: nanotechnology in smart textiles, nanotechnology

in nanomedicine, and nanotechnology in Brain-Computer Interactions. The others presented dilemmas in the

discussion on the precautionary principle, and on risk governance of nanotechnology.

The third stage consists of a European stakeholder dialogue in Brussels, 9-10 April 2018. This dialogue focused

on responsiveness in future strategies for nanotechnology research and innovation in smart textiles, nanomedicine

and brain-computer interfaces. Given the dialogue methodology and the backgrounds of the invited participants,

no preparation was required of participants before the meeting, but they were welcome to use training materials

collected on the website.

1.3. Contents of each chapter

Chapter 2, training the citizens, includes information on the design of the training materials offered to citizens. After

intensive discussions with VU/VUMC, the training materials for the citizens dialogues in 6 countries were integrated

seamlessly in the programmes and background materials for the citizens dialogues. This is followed by a

description of the implementation: three sets of information were developed: a background sheet and introductory

information on nanomedicine, nanotechnology for smart textiles and nanotechnology in BCI. These were translated

in the national language by science centres and offered to the participants. Finally, the chapter ends with a

discussion of the results of the training, based on the reports of each citizen dialogue.

Chapter 3, training participants in national stakeholder dialogues, starts again with a presentation of the design of

these materials. After intensive discussions with VU/VUMC and the science centres, raw materials on a common

responsibility for nanotechnology, role responsibilities for 6 distinct groups of stakeholders, and five illustrative

cases were developed. After this, the implementation of the training is explained. The science centres adapted this

raw material to their specific needs and translated it in the language of the dialogue. They took care of offering it

4 In Nano2All, we distinguish six stakeholder communities, including citizens, scientists, industry, policy makers

and research funders, civil society organisations and media. 5 http://nano2all.eu/training

http://nano2all.eu/training



10

to the participants as an integrated training component, taking the form of a reflection exercise. The results of the

training reported in chapter 3 are again based on the reports of the stakeholder dialogues. The evaluation of the

additional exercise with didactic elements integrated in the dialogues (reflection exercise) that helped the learning

process will be detailed in deliverables D3.3 and D3.4.

Chapter 4, training offered to users of Nano2All website, commenced again with a description of the design. After

intensive discussions with VU/VUMC and SPI, webinars on five illustrative cases were developed. These have

been implemented by incorporating them in the training section of the Nano2All website and offered to interested

users of the website. The results are measured by the number of page views (done by SPI).

Chapter 5 consists of conclusions and recommendations.



11

2. Training the citizens

2.1. Design

The foreseen training of citizens participating in the dialogues described in the Nano2All workplan is presented in

box 2.

The customisation of the training implies that the programme will have two axes: one axis will be the common

training, covering:

• A brief, basic level, introduction to main social & scientific concepts central to Dialogue.

• An overview of main guiding principles on sustainable development and on responsible S&T at

UN and EU level (incl. the EC Nanocode and the RRI guiding principles)

• How Corporate Social Development is used in practice and how it can be extended to innovation

• Presentation of relevant Case Studies/Best Practices highlighting dilemmas in RRI.

The citizens will undertake the common training in face-to-face (to last 1,5-2 hours) sessions, half of which will

be dedicated to the discussion of the case studies, and tools such as vignettes or reflection tools to sensitise

the participants to the various arguments. The room should be in a roundtable setting.

Box 2: Description of the foreseen training for citizens in task 2.4.

As the dialogue methodology evolved, this original idea was considered too time consuming and not really useful

for participants. After intensive discussions with VU/VUMC, the training materials for the citizens dialogues in the

six countries were integrated seamlessly in the programmes and background materials for the citizens dialogues.

2.2. Implementation

Before the dialogue workshops, participants received a brief information sheet on the Nano2All project and a sheet

with introductory information on the topic of the workshop they were invited for. This was either nanomedicine,

nanotechnology for smart textiles or nanotechnology in Brain-Computer Interfaces. During the workshop, the

participants were offered question and answer cards to familiarise themselves with nanotechnology in general and

nanotechnology for the topic of their workshop. All these materials were translated in the national language by

science centres and offered to the participants. The English versions of the sheets and question-answer cards are

included in the boxes below.

Fact sheets sent before the workshops

Fact sheet NANO2ALL project

Dear participant,

You may wonder why we send you this information about the NANO2ALL project, since you registered for a

workshop at your local science centre or science museum. We think it will help you understand the context



12

surrounding the discussions at your workshop. We also would like to tell you what we will do with the outcomes

of your deliberations.

Kind regards,

The NANO2ALL project team

About NANO2ALL

The project should result in a “Nanotechnology Mutual Learning Action Plan for Transparent and Responsible

Understanding of Science and Technology”. In the preparatory stages of the project, we have reviewed the

results of earlier dialogues on responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology. This has helped us plan

a series of 6 local citizens’ dialogues including the workshop you have registered for.

What happens during the citizens’ dialogue workshop?

The workshops are organised by science centres and science museums in France, Italy, Israel, Poland, Spain

and Sweden. During the workshop, you will develop imaginative future visions of what nanotechnology may

bring in a context of healthcare, textiles or brain machine interactions.

What will be done with our ideas?

Your visions will form the starting point of a second round of discussions in your country, involving

representatives of citizens, researchers, technology developers, policy makers, civil society organisations and

journalists. Simultaneously, similar discussions will be organised in the other five countries. In a third round,

participants from all six national dialogues will meet in a European dialogue. Partners in the NANO2ALL project

will develop the vision and recommendations developed in the dialogues further into a roadmap for responsible

research and innovation in nanotechnology.

Who is behind NANO2ALL?

This is a 42-month initiative started in October 2015 and has received funding through the Horizon 2020

programme of the European Union. NANO2ALL is coordinated by Sociedade Portuguesa de Inovação (SPI),

and the consortium is composed of 11 other partners: Vilabs (Greece); MALSCH (The Netherlands); APRE

(Italy); ECSITE (Belgium); NANOfutures (Belgium); EUSJA (France); EMRS (France); VU/VUmc (The

Netherlands); UNINOVA (Portugal); SYSTASI (Greece) and JRC (Belgium). More information on NANO2ALL is

available at www.nano2all.eu

Fact sheet Nanotechnology for Health

What are we talking about?

Nanoscience is the study of materials and phenomena at the tiny scale of 1-100 nanometres: the scale of atoms

and molecules. One nanometre is around 1/80,000th of the thickness of a human hair. Nanoscience is an

http://www.nano2all.eu/



13

interdisciplinary area of research, spanning the boundaries between physics, chemistry, biology, materials

science and other sciences. Most research combines knowledge from only two or three disciplines, therefore it

is more appropriate to speak of nanosciences (plural).

Nanotechnology is the application of knowledge gained in nanosciences to the development of new

nanostructured materials and devices. Nanotechnology can be applied in a wide range of products, including

energy, environmental products, healthcare, cosmetics, and computers. While some products enabled by

nanotechnology are already on the market, most research is still in the laboratory phase.

What is special about nanotechnology? Nanoscale materials and devices have unique size-dependent

properties different from the same materials and devices at larger sizes, and also different from ordinary

chemicals. For example, Iron and other metals conduct electricity, while plastics insulate it. Nanostructured

plastics and composites can conduct electricity and enable cheaper and flexible electronics. These size-

dependent properties can offer new benefits for the economy and for society but may also introduce new risks

for health and safety of consumers and workers, and for the environment.

Nanomedicine is the use of nanotechnologies for diagnosing, treating, and preventing disease. Another name

for it is “nanotechnology for health”. An example of a nanodiagnostic is a pregnancy test, where the red lines

are caused by gold nanoparticles. Some cancer pharmaceuticals use nanotechnology for targeted delivery of

chemotherapy to the tumour, reducing side effects. Nanoparticles used as contrast fluid in medical imaging can

contribute to early identification and treatment of diseases before patients start feeling ill.

Who is doing nanomedicine? Most research in nanomedicine is done in large public-private partnerships,

such as the European Technology Platform Nanomedicine and its national mirror networks: www.etp-

nanomedicine.eu. Scientists in universities are cooperating with researchers in small and large high-tech

companies, and medical doctors in hospitals. Government policy makers and representatives of patients’ groups

participate in discussions about regulating the access of nanomedicine to the market and about targeting the

research to the needs of patients.

When can patients expect nanocures? Nanodrug delivery is already used in some cancer drugs on the

market, but most products are still in the drug development pipeline. Regulations governing market access of

new pharmaceuticals are very strict, prescribing several stages of preclinical and clinical testing demonstrating

efficacy and safety before the product is allowed on the market. Therefore, it can take years before most

nanodrugs are available, and not all products will make it to the market. Most nanomaterials are currently used

in dentistry. Nanocoatings are furthermore used to improve integration in the body of implants including stents,

hip and knee implants. In the longer term, neurological implants can help blind patients regain some sight, or

offer relief for diseases like Parkinson.

http://www.etp-nanomedicine.eu/

http://www.etp-nanomedicine.eu/



14

Fact sheet Nanotextiles








nanostructured materials and devices. Nanotechnology can be applied in a wide range of products. While some

products enabled by nanotechnology are already on the market, most research is still in the laboratory phase.

Nanoelectronics is miniaturisation of microelectronics, enabling more powerful computers and larger memory

capacity in smaller devices. It also includes changing the electro-magnetic properties of materials. For example,

Iron and other metals conduct electricity, while plastics insulate it. Nanostructured plastics can conduct electricity

and enable cheaper and flexible electronics.



chemicals. These size-dependent properties can offer new benefits for the economy and for society but may

also introduce new risks for health and safety of consumers and workers, and for the environment.

Nanotextiles are created with very small particles or fibres giving ordinary materials new or improved

characteristics, such as increased strength, water resistance, or stain resistance. The nanoparticles or

nanostructures are either integrated in the fibres of the textile or applied to the surface of a regular textile as a

coating. What happens to nanoparticles washing out of the fabric during waste water processing is still being

investigated.

Smart textiles integrate computers and electronics into fabrics. Currently, microelectronics (bigger than nano)

are used to weave devices like mobile phones or MP3 players into clothes. Right now, the electronics in these

clothes are just mounted onto the surface of the material. But with nanostructures, like carbon nanotubes that

can conduct electricity and can be woven like thread, it is possible to fully integrate the electronics into the fabric.

Source: www.nanoandme.org.

When can I buy nanofashion? Nanoparticles are already widely used in textiles on the market. An example

are antimicrobial textiles with Silver nanoparticles used in wound dressing, but also in ‘odourless socks’. The

market for smart textiles and wearables, incorporating intelligence in clothes and devices worn on the body is

emerging. European SMEs in electronic components and systems and European research and technology

organisations are developing new innovations.

More info: DaNa project information on nanoparticles in textiles:

http://www.nanopartikel.info/en/nanoinfo/cross-cutting/2113-nanoparticles-in-textiles

http://www.nanoandme.org/




15

European Commission: Smart Wearables: Reflection and Orientation Paper. 2016: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-

single-market/en/news/european-commission-seeks-input-reflection-and-orientation-paper-smart-wearables

Fact sheet Nanotechnology in Brain Computer Interfaces








nanostructured materials and devices. Nanotechnology can be applied in a wide range of products. While some

nano-enabled products are already on the market, most research is still in the laboratory.







chemicals. These size-dependent properties can offer new benefits for the economy and for society but may

also introduce new risks for health and safety of consumers and workers, and for the environment.

A brain-computer interface is a device that can directly translate brain signals to actions, such as the operation

of software applications (e.g. a word processor), or equipment (e.g. a television). Small sensors – placed on or

inside the brain - capture the signals and communicate these to an external device. This would allow you to

control a machine by only using your thoughts. (http://neuroprothese.nl/?page_id=769)

Nanotechnology can be used in electrodes enabling better connections between BCI and neurons in the brain.

Some Brain-Computer Interactions (BCI) implant electrodes directly into the nervous system, e.g. deep brain

stimulation. These connections must have a nanometre size and also require connecting ‘wet’ biological cells

with ‘dry’ electronics. BCI depends on the convergence of nano-, bio- and information technologies, and

cognitive sciences.

Who could benefit? Disabled people including paraplegics, blind people, people suffering brain damage etc.

are most likely to benefit from BCI. Possibilities for Human Enhancement of soldiers and members of the

transhumanist association are also widely discussed. E.g. some would like to have Infrared vision for seeing in

the dark.

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/european-commission-seeks-input-reflection-and-orientation-paper-smart-wearables


http://neuroprothese.nl/?page_id=769



16

When will BCI be available? In the laboratory, several experiments with animals and human volunteers have

already been successful to some extent, but it may still take years before they are effective and safe enough to

be allowed on the market. In 2015, Ray Flynn (80) was the first macular degeneration patient who could

distinguish lines on a computer screen thanks to the implant. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33571412

Professor Kevin Warwick has pioneered nanotechnology enabled implants, aiming to transform himself into a

‘cybernetic organism’ (cyborg). Whether such ‘human enhancement’ is ethically sound is still under discussion.

(http://www.kevinwarwick.com/)

Question and answer cards

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33571412

http://www.kevinwarwick.com/



17



18



19



20

2.3. Results

The short reports on the preliminary results of the dialogues are available at the resources section of the

NANO2ALL website under NANO2ALL materials.6 In addition, the evaluation forms for each citizen dialogue

included two multiple choice questions which are relevant to the offered training materials:

1) The given information on nanomedicine/ nano in smart textile / nano in BCI was understandable

2) It was clear to me what was expected of us in the dialogue exercises

The responses to these questions are summarised in tables 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 below. A vast majority (90%) agreed

or totally agreed that the information was understandable, only 10% was neutral. It was clear what was expected

to a smaller share of the respondents, but still 70% agreed or totally agreed to the second statement, while 12%

disagreed or totally disagreed. Overall, it appears that participants were informed adequately, allowing them to

contribute to the citizens’ dialogue. In the open questions, some participants commented on the learning or

preparation of the workshop. While most people appeared satisfied, some had expected more information. The

answers related to prior information or learning, given to open question 4 are listed in table 2.3.3, and those given

to open question 5 are listed in table 2.3.4. These questions solicited suggestions of aspects the participants had

missed, not what they were pleased with, implying a negative bias. However, the suggestions are useful to improve

the training strategy and materials for future dialogue and engagement activities. Some people wanted more

6 http://www.nano2all.eu/resources

http://www.nano2all.eu/resources



21

general introductory information, while others asked for specific information on the state of research, nanosafety,

regulation or other applications than the one targeted at the workshop they attended.

Q1 Totally disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Totally agree

France – 11p 2 7 2

Israel – 7p 6 1

Italy – 18p 2 10 6

Poland

Spain – 11p 1 5 5

Sweden – 12p 1 7 4

Total 6 35 18

Total % 10% 59% 31%

Table 2.3.1: Responses to Q1: The given information on nanomedicine/ nano in smart textile / nano in BCI was

understandable

Q2 Totally disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Totally agree

France – 11p 1 7 3

Israel – 7p 2 4 1

Italy – 18p 1 2.5 4.5 4 6

Spain – 11p 2 3 6

Sweden - 12p 1 3 1 3 4

Total 2 5.5 10.5 21 20

Total % 3% 9% 18% 36% 34%

Table 2.3.2: Responses to Q2: It was clear to me what was expected of us in the dialogue exercises7

7 One Italian participant circled option 2 (disagree) and 3 (neutral), therefore we added half a point to each option.



22

France Israel Italy Sweden

Where is the research

now?

Do we use nano?

economic

issues were not

discussed

I don't know, A new fuel with nanotechnology

we have enormous hurricanes

USA Asia and Africa are

beginning fade due to drought:

fuel more biological

Health and security not enough

background

Implications of nanotextile in

the agro-food field.

Influence over economy,

business, greed

Complexity of research deprived

populations

Current state of the

manufacturing processes

spread, market expectations

Which actual subjects

(substances) are discussed

for nanotechnology

The physical and

chemical properties of

nanotechnologies.

Yes but I know little and I don't

know which ones

More introductory information

about the technology

The one related to the

nanotextiles

Some concrete examples on

potential environmental- and

health-hazards (effects)

Different: agro-food,

environmental, educational

fields

Legislation on nanomaterials,

which laws are valid, some

concrete examples on

applications except

nanomedicine

How they are built/made Nanotechnology that can mean

hazardous chemicals.

The topic is too huge, it is a

difficult answer

I don't know

biomedical

Yes, maybe more concrete

examples of applications,

however it was not

supposed to be a

conference, therefore it was

ok!

Table 2.3.3: Training-related responses to open question 4: Do you think there were any significant issues related

to nanomedicine that were NOT discussed, but which should have been? What were these?



23

France Israel Italy Sweden

A more detailed information

about nanotechnology

Real examples

Searches in progress

was good and

interesting

The activity was

wonderful and very

beautiful moments of

dialogue were created but

the conductor directed the

talk too much and we

went to conclude where

she wanted. I saw it, a bit,

like a destruction of the

good job done in the

previous 3.5 hours.

A biological fingerprint petrol

diesel airplane fuel are all

very poisonous during

second worldwar then it was

possible today it is no longer

possible Africa bad water

children die 5 year make oil

barrels 250 liters Stainless

Cleaning Swedish male puts

a cleaning treatment plant in

an oil barrel Ekeby

whellbarrow wheels

attached in hollow iron sheet

metal and solar cells cheap

and will not break 4 pieces

Thank you for explaining the

instructions several times.

Explanations in different forms

too long and

the purpose is

unclear.

I would like to go on with

the meetings

Interesting and rewarding.

Has given me new

knowledge today.

Less breaks and more activities

Thank you

It seems that

the concerns in

the dialogue

were relevant

to all human

activity not just

nanomedicine

to show some ongoing

researchers, current

discoveries on the topics

considered

This was more like a

reflection – was mostly about

working in a group – It is for

sure that some would have

had more thoughts/ideas

after individual reflections

Interesting afternoon

Sympathetic moment

Thank you

was charming

but a bit too

long

No, everything's fine,

maybe less food, these

homeless people

(freeloaders) can also eat

at their home

More dialogue on ecological

nanotechnology

I would like to know that it was a

workshop to promote some

product of nanotechnologies.

Go on!

Very interesting to understand

science (an area reserved for

specialists)

Some cards are to be reviewed

(advantages, …)

Table 2.3.4: Training-related responses to open question 5: If you have any remarks, tips for improvement or

complaints, please describe them below.



24

3. Training participants in national stakeholder dialogues

3.1. Design

The stakeholder training which was originally foreseen in the Nano2All workplan is presented in box 3.

The customisation of the training implies that the programme will have two axes: one axis will be the common

training, covering:

• A brief, basic level, introduction to main social & scientific concepts central to Dialogue.

• An overview of main guiding principles on sustainable development and on responsible S&T at UN and

EU level (incl. the EC Nanocode and the RRI guiding principles)

• How Corporate Social Development is used in practice and how it can be extended to innovation

• Presentation of relevant Case Studies/Best Practices highlighting dilemmas in RRI.

The other axis will be the customised stakeholder training. Potential subjects for each stakeholder category:

• Scientists: engaging in dialogue with lay audiences, co-production of knowledge, etc., while special

attention to be paid to interaction between SSH and NT scientists.

• Industry: Corporate Social Responsibility, co-production of knowledge, responsible research

governance,

• Government: public engagement and outreach in nanotechnology, co-production of knowledge, etc.

• Citizens, CSOs and NGOs: co-production of knowledge, Corporate Social Responsibility, etc.

• Media: what is nanotechnology, what are the interests of governments, who are the stakeholders and

what are their interests, where to find informed experts, what the main issues in stakeholder dialogue

are, etc.

Box 3: Description of the training of stakeholders in task 2.4 according to the Nano2All workplan.

After intensive discussions with VU/VUMC and the science centres, raw materials presenting background materials

useful for common training of the participants at the start of the workshop were developed to implement the

common stakeholder training and incorporate this seamlessly into the programme of the dialogue events. To

comply with the set target in the Nano2All workplan, this raw material was divided in twelve modules: one module

discussed a common responsibility for nanotechnology, six modules presented role responsibilities for six distinct

groups of stakeholders, and five highlighted illustrative cases with ethical dilemmas. To accommodate the needs

of the science centres, the explanation of the common and role responsibilities for nanotechnology were combined

in one word-document, and the five cases in another.

3.2. Implementation

The science centres adapted this raw material to their specific needs and translated it in the language of the

dialogue. They took care of offering it to the participants as an integrated training component, taking the form of a

reflection exercise. The raw material is included in the box below.



25

Common responsibility for nanotechnology

Ineke Malsch, [email protected], 27-9-2017

Explanatory note for Science Centres:

This is the raw material for training the participants in the national dialogue on nanomedicine, BCI, or smart

textiles. The introductory texts on nanotechnology, nanomedicine, nano in BCI, nano in smart textiles are

almost the same as for the citizens dialogues. Feel free to adapt it to your specific context. I present the

materials in a question-and-answer format to make it livelier.

Introduction

What is nanotechnology?







nanostructured materials and devices. Nanotechnology can be applied in a wide range of products, including

energy, environmental products, healthcare, cosmetics, and computers. While some products enabled by

nanotechnology are already on the market, most research is still in the laboratory phase.







chemicals. For example, Iron and other metals conduct electricity, while plastics insulate it. Nanostructured

plastics and composites can conduct electricity and enable cheaper and flexible electronics. These size-

dependent properties can offer new benefits for the economy and for society but may also introduce new risks

for health and safety of consumers and workers, and for the environment.

Several other projects have developed posters or short introductory videos on nanotechnology. This shortlist

includes some recommended materials.

Introducing nanotechnology

mailto:[email protected]



26

France

These posters introducing nanotechnology are recommended to citizens and stakeholders without an prior

knowledge of nanotechnology: http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_FR%20-

%20Poster%201%20nanoscale.pdf and http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_FR%20-

%20Poster%202%20nanoscale.pdf

Spain

NanoDYF includes multimedia introducing nanotechnology in Spanish: https://www.nanodyf.com/multimedia

These posters introducing nanotechnology are recommended to citizens and stakeholders without an prior

knowledge of nanotechnology: http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_ES%20-

%20Poster%201%20nanoscale.pdf and http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_ES%20-

%20Poster%202%20nanoscale%202.pdf

NanoChannels has developed relevant materials in Spanish: http://www.nanochannelsfp7.eu/

Sweden

Lund University lists public information on its nanotechnology activities here: http://www.nano.lu.se/pa-svenska

VINNOVA has published the national nanostrategy in Swedish in January 2010:

http://www.vinnova.se/sv/Aktuellt--publicerat/Publikationer/Produkter/Nationell-strategi-for-nanoteknik/ It also

features a video interview with prof Lars Samuelson of NanoLund explaining nanotechnology in Swedish:

http://www.vinnova.se/sv/Aktuellt--publicerat/Webb-tv-arkiv/Forskarportratt/Lars-Samuelsson-om-

mojligheterna-med-nanoteknik/

Israel

NanoYou and its follow-up project NanoChannels include posters and presentations, images and art and other

materials in English and other languages: http://www.nanoyou.eu/ and www.nanochannelsfp7.eu (also in

Hebrew: http://www.nanochannelsfp7.eu/?p=2354&lang=he). The Israeli Schoolnet ORT participated in both

projects and developed teaching materials for schools in Hebrew: http://en.ort.org.il/1351/

Brief introductions to nanotechnology in English are included here:

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_NANOYOU%201%20The%20nanoscale%20%5bModo%20de%20c

ompatibilidad%5d.pdf and

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_NANOYOU%202%20How%20is%20nano%20special%20%5bModo

%20de%20compatibilidad%5d.pdf

Time for Nano has developed materials and a video contest in different languages including English:

http://www.timefornano.eu/

Italy

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_FR%20-%20Poster%201%20nanoscale.pdf




https://www.nanodyf.com/multimedia

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_ES%20-%20Poster%201%20nanoscale.pdf

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_ES%20-%20Poster%201%20nanoscale.pdf

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_ES%20-%20Poster%202%20nanoscale%202.pdf

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_ES%20-%20Poster%202%20nanoscale%202.pdf

http://www.nanochannelsfp7.eu/

http://www.nano.lu.se/pa-svenska

http://www.vinnova.se/sv/Aktuellt--publicerat/Publikationer/Produkter/Nationell-strategi-for-nanoteknik/

http://www.vinnova.se/sv/Aktuellt--publicerat/Webb-tv-arkiv/Forskarportratt/Lars-Samuelsson-om-mojligheterna-med-nanoteknik/

http://www.vinnova.se/sv/Aktuellt--publicerat/Webb-tv-arkiv/Forskarportratt/Lars-Samuelsson-om-mojligheterna-med-nanoteknik/

http://www.nanoyou.eu/

http://www.nanochannelsfp7.eu/

http://www.nanochannelsfp7.eu/?p=2354&lang=he

http://en.ort.org.il/1351/

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_NANOYOU%201%20The%20nanoscale%20%5bModo%20de%20compatibilidad%5d.pdf

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_NANOYOU%201%20The%20nanoscale%20%5bModo%20de%20compatibilidad%5d.pdf

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_NANOYOU%202%20How%20is%20nano%20special%20%5bModo%20de%20compatibilidad%5d.pdf

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_NANOYOU%202%20How%20is%20nano%20special%20%5bModo%20de%20compatibilidad%5d.pdf

http://www.timefornano.eu/



27

NanoYou includes posters and presentations, images and art and other materials in Italian and other languages:


These posters introducing nanotechnology are recommended to citizens and stakeholders without any prior

knowledge of nanotechnology: http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_IT%20-

%20Poster%201%20nanoscale.pdf and http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_IT%20-

%20Poster%202%20nanoscale%202.pdf

Time for Nano has developed materials and a video contest in different languages including Italian:

http://www.timefornano.eu/it

Poland

Time for Nano has developed materials and a video contest in different languages including Polish:

http://www.timefornano.eu/pl

What is nanomedicine?

Nanomedicine is the use of nanotechnologies for diagnosing, treating, and preventing disease. Another name

for it is “nanotechnology for health”. An example of a nanodiagnostic is a pregnancy test, where the red lines

are caused by gold nanoparticles. Some cancer pharmaceuticals use nanotechnology for targeted delivery of

chemotherapy to the tumour, reducing side effects. Nanoparticles used as contrast fluid in medical imaging can

contribute to early identification and treatment of diseases before patients start feeling ill. The European

Technology Platform Nanomedicine explains the concept in this short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VcNpl8-PRI&feature=youtu.be

Who is doing nanomedicine? Most research in nanomedicine is done in large public-private partnerships,

such as the European Technology Platform Nanomedicine and its national mirror networks: www.etp-

nanomedicine.eu. Scientists in universities are cooperating with researchers in small and large high-tech

companies, and medical doctors in hospitals. Government policy makers and representatives of patients’ groups

participate in discussions about regulating the access of nanomedicine to the market and about targeting the

research to the needs of patients.

When can patients expect nanocures? Nanodrug delivery is already used in some cancer drugs on the

market, but most products are still in the drug development pipeline. Regulations governing market access of

new pharmaceuticals are very strict, prescribing several stages of preclinical and clinical testing demonstrating

efficacy and safety before the product is allowed on the market. Therefore, it can take years before most

nanodrugs are available, and not all products will make it to the market. Most nanomaterials are currently used

in dentistry. Nanocoatings are furthermore used to improve integration in the body of implants including stents,

hip and knee implants. In the longer term, neurological implants can help blind patients regain some sight, or

offer relief for diseases like Parkinson.


http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_IT%20-%20Poster%201%20nanoscale.pdf

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_IT%20-%20Poster%201%20nanoscale.pdf

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_IT%20-%20Poster%202%20nanoscale%202.pdf

http://www.nanoyou.eu/attachments/297_IT%20-%20Poster%202%20nanoscale%202.pdf

http://www.timefornano.eu/it

http://www.timefornano.eu/pl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VcNpl8-PRI&feature=youtu.be



28

What is nanotechnology in Brain-Computer Interactions?

A brain-computer interface is a device that can directly translate brain signals to actions, such as the operation

of software applications (e.g. a word processor), or equipment (e.g. a television). Small sensors – placed on or

inside the brain - capture the signals and communicate these to an external device. This would allow you to

control a machine by only using your thoughts. (http://neuroprothese.nl/?page_id=769)

Nanotechnology can be used in electrodes enabling better connections between BCI and neurons in the brain.

Some Brain-Computer Interactions (BCI) implant electrodes directly into the nervous system, e.g. deep brain

stimulation. These connections must have a nanometre size and also require connecting ‘wet’ biological cells

with ‘dry’ electronics. BCI depends on the convergence of nano-, bio- and information technologies, and

cognitive sciences.

Who could benefit? Disabled people including paraplegics, blind people, people suffering brain damage etc.

are most likely to benefit from BCI. Possibilities for Human Enhancement of soldiers and members of the

transhumanist association are also widely discussed. E.g. some would like to have Infrared vision for seeing in

the dark.

When will BCI be available? In the laboratory, several experiments with animals and human volunteers have

already been successful to some extent, but it may still take years before they are effective and safe enough to

be allowed on the market. In 2015, Ray Flynn (80) was the first macular degeneration patient who could

distinguish lines on a computer screen thanks to the implant. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33571412

Professor Kevin Warwick has pioneered nanotechnology enabled implants, aiming to transform himself into a

‘cybernetic organism’ (cyborg). Whether such ‘human enhancement’ is ethically sound is still under discussion.

(http://www.kevinwarwick.com/)

In France, the region Nord-Pas de Calais funded dialogue on nanotechnology from 2013 until March 2017

(NANOSCOOPE): http://nanoscoope.iemn.univ-lille1.fr/ This includes a colloquium including a session on

nanotechnology and the brain. The video is available online: http://www.ethique-npdc.fr/manifestations-

publiques/technologies-emergentes-et-ethique/video-nano-2016/

Spanish researchers are cooperating in the BrainCom project in H2020: http://www.braincom-project.eu/ . This

article on BrainCom in Spanish gives a good introduction:

http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/ciencia/nanotecnologia-alumbra-nueva-generacion-implantes-

cerebrales-5770502

What is nanotechnology in smart textiles?

Nanotextiles are created with very small particles or fibres giving ordinary materials new or improved

characteristics, such as increased strength, water resistance, or stain resistance. The nanoparticles or

nanostructures are either integrated in the fibres of the textile or applied to the surface of a regular textile as a

coating. What happens to nanoparticles washing out of the fabric during waste water processing is still being

investigated.

http://neuroprothese.nl/?page_id=769

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33571412

http://www.kevinwarwick.com/

http://nanoscoope.iemn.univ-lille1.fr/

http://www.ethique-npdc.fr/manifestations-publiques/technologies-emergentes-et-ethique/video-nano-2016/

http://www.ethique-npdc.fr/manifestations-publiques/technologies-emergentes-et-ethique/video-nano-2016/

http://www.braincom-project.eu/

http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/ciencia/nanotecnologia-alumbra-nueva-generacion-implantes-cerebrales-5770502

http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/ciencia/nanotecnologia-alumbra-nueva-generacion-implantes-cerebrales-5770502



29

Smart textiles integrate computers and electronics into fabrics. Currently, microelectronics (bigger than nano)

are used to weave devices like mobile phones or MP3 players into clothes. Right now, the electronics in these

clothes are just mounted onto the surface of the material. But with nanostructures, like carbon nanotubes that

can conduct electricity and can be woven like thread, it is possible to fully integrate the electronics into the fabric.

Source: www.nanoandme.org.

When can I buy nanofashion? Nanoparticles are already widely used in textiles on the market. An example

are antimicrobial textiles with Silver nanoparticles used in wound dressing, but also in ‘odourless socks’. The

market for smart textiles and wearables, incorporating intelligence in clothes and devices worn on the body is

emerging. European SMEs in electronic components and systems and European research and technology

organisations are developing new innovations.

More info: DaNa project information on nanoparticles in textiles:


European Commission: Smart Wearables: Reflection and Orientation Paper. 2016: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-

single-market/en/news/european-commission-seeks-input-reflection-and-orientation-paper-smart-wearables

What is the context surrounding the dialogue workshop you invite me to?

The dialogue workshop is organised in the EU funded project Nano2All (www.nano2all.eu). This project should

result in a “Nanotechnology Mutual Learning Action Plan for Transparent and Responsible Understanding of

Science and Technology”. In the preparatory stages of the project, we have reviewed the results of earlier

dialogues on responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology. This has helped us plan a series of six

local citizens’ dialogues in the spring of this year.

What happened during the citizens’ dialogue workshop?

The workshops were organised by science centres and science museums in France, Italy, Israel, Poland, Spain

and Sweden. During the workshop, citizens have developed imaginative future visions of what nanotechnology

may bring in a context of healthcare, textiles or brain-computer interactions. The reports of those workshops

are available here: http://www.nano2all.eu/resources.

What will happen during the upcoming stakeholder dialogue workshop?

You have been invited for a second round of discussions in your country, involving representatives of citizens,

researchers, technology developers, policy makers, civil society organisations and journalists. The visions

resulting from the citizens’ dialogue workshop will form the starting point of your discussion. In a series of

interactive sessions, you will develop them further. Simultaneously, similar discussions will be organised in the

other five countries.

Is this the end of the dialogue?

http://www.nanoandme.org/








30

No. In a third round in 2018, participants from all six national dialogues will meet in a European dialogue.

Partners in the NANO2ALL project will develop the vision and recommendations developed in the dialogues

further into a roadmap for responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology.

Who is behind NANO2ALL?

This is a 42-month initiative started in October 2015 and has received funding through the Horizon 2020

programme of the European Union. NANO2ALL is coordinated by Sociedade Portuguesa de Inovação (SPI),

and the consortium is composed of 11 other partners: Vilabs (Greece); MALSCH (The Netherlands); APRE

(Italy); ECSITE (Belgium); NANOfutures (Belgium); EUSJA (France); EMRS (France); VU/VUmc (The

Netherlands); UNINOVA (Portugal); SYSTASI (Greece) and JRC (Belgium). More information on NANO2ALL is

available at www.nano2all.eu

What is responsible innovation?

Where does this interest in responsible research and innovation come from? Isn’t all research and

innovation responsible?

Most scientists and engineers are well-meaning people, who do their work to the best of their knowledge and

abilities. A key problem is that progress in science and technology is not controlled by anybody on their own.

Many different institutions and persons influence the shaping of technology and the impacts it has on people,

the environment and society. Traditionally, there was a division of labour between scientists, engineers and

industrialists on the one hand and governments and civil society on the other. The former should concentrate

on developing new technologies, while the latter had to deal with the consequences. The following quote

illustrates this division of labour:

“Science takes the credit for penicillin, while Society takes the blame for the Bomb”. (Jerry Ravetz (1975) ‘… et

augebitur scientia’ in Rom Harré (ed.) Problems of Scientific Revolution. University Press, London, p 45.)

More recently, policy makers, stakeholders and social scientists have started thinking about solutions for

overcoming this dichotomy between science and society. I call this movement a trend towards ‘Do-It-Yourself

Ethics’: scientists and all stakeholders should imagine and discuss together ethical and societal aspects of new

technologies and change course early. The hoped-for result should be more sustainable and socially acceptable

technologies.

How recent is this interest in more responsible innovation?

Even though not all experts agree about the starting point for responsible research and innovation, I think it is

fair to say that substantial political interest and public investment in research in responsible innovation started

with nanotechnology. For example, around 2003, the policy makers responsible for the National Nanotechnology

Initiative in the USA and the thematic programme on nanotechnology at the European Commission initiated and

invested in early stage studies and dialogue on ethical and societal aspects of nanotechnology. One of the aims

was to prevent controversy over nanotechnology, similar to the public debate on genetically modified organisms

in food in Europe in the 1990s. In the USA, responsible nanotechnology development was regulated by the 21st

Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (2003), while in Europe, the Communication from the




31

European Commission on Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An Action Plan for Europe (2005-2009)

constituted the policy strategy. Around 2010, political interest broadened to responsible research and innovation

in general. More information on the EU policy on nanotechnology is available from this website:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/policy_en.html

What is responsible research and innovation today?

Currently, Responsible Research and Innovation is a horizontal, cross-cutting priority in the Horizon 2020

funding programme for Research and Technology Development of the European Union. This implies that

everyone who applies for funding under this programme should integrate study of ethical and societal aspects

in their technological research projects. The beneficiaries are free to propose their own way to do this. However,

they will have to indicate in their proposal if they expect any ethical issues and explain how they will handle

these issues in their research. Another way the European Union and some national governments foster

responsible innovation is by stimulating Value-Sensitive Design of new technologies. One way to contribute to

Value-Sensitive Design is by involving citizens and end-users in early stages of research. A third way to foster

Responsible Research and Innovation is through fostering public dialogue about responsible governance of

innovation. The dialogue you have been invited for in the Nano2All project is an example.

The Technical University of Delft has developed a Massive Open Online Course on Responsible Innovation, for

those who would like to learn more: https://online-learning.tudelft.nl/courses/responsible-innovation/

Is there any international discussion on responsible innovation at the global level?

Yes. Since the 1960s, the international policy debate on the role of science and technology in society has

steadily evolved. Over the years, the distribution of responsibilities over governments and other stakeholders

has changed. An authoritative starting point is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights (1966). At that time, public opinion on science and technology was optimistic: it was deemed to bring

mainly benefits to society. The main concerns were to guarantee academic freedom and to ensure equal access

to the fruits of scientific research to everyone. Governments of the States Parties to this covenant were charged

with the sole responsibility for this.

In 1974, the General Conference of the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organisation (UNESCO)

adopted the Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers. The conference recognised potential

benefits as well as threats of scientific research. The governments of UNESCO’s member states should develop

adequate science and technology policies and take care of career perspectives of scientists. Scientists should

be trained in ethical and social aspects of research.

Around the start of the new millennium, UNESCO adopted two declarations addressing bioethics: The Universal

Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997), and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and

Human Rights (2005). The latter included medicine, life sciences and associated technologies as well as

genetics. While states kept the primary responsibility for regulating these areas of science and their applications,

other stakeholders were also called upon to contribute to a common responsibility. In 1997, scientists were

asked to respect research ethics guidelines. In 2005, individuals, groups, communities, institutions and

corporations, public and private, were offered guidance on how to consider their share in common responsibility.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/policy_en.html

https://online-learning.tudelft.nl/courses/responsible-innovation/



32

Besides this focus on bioethics, discussion also continued on ethics of other sciences and technologies. The

1999 Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge, adopted by the World Conference on

Science, included proposals to improve the contributions of science to sustainable development. Governments

are called upon to adapt the national institutionalisation of science, while scientists are called upon to adhere to

research ethics principles.

Currently, UNESCO is working on a revision of the 1974 Recommendation on the Status of Scientific

Researchers. The updated text should “reflect contemporary ethical and regulatory challenges relating to the

governance of science and the science-society relationship” and be adopted by end of 2017. It should consider

the abovementioned declarations. One of the issues is the role of scientists employed by private companies.

Another issue is reaching a new balance in responsibilities of scientists, institutions and governments for

responsible research and innovation.

Who should contribute?

What do you mean by a common responsibility for research and innovation?

I don’t mean that everybody should do the same. The underlying problem in responsible innovation is that no

single government, organisation, company or individual can take care of it by themselves. One common

responsibility for all stakeholders is the need to participate in open public dialogue about responsible research

and innovation. The dialogue workshop you have been invited for is an example. While cooperation is needed,

each stakeholder community should in addition contribute its own role responsibility. Below, I briefly explain the

role responsibilities of each group.

What should be the scope of discussion in the dialogues?

Make sure that the discussion is not limited to technical issues, but also table discussion on underlying values,

even if you are not used to such an approach. A good question about nanomedicine is for example: what does

health mean to different participants? When discussion nanotechnology for Brain-Computer Interactions, you

might discuss what it means to be human. Nanotechnology in smart textiles could delve into questions of

ownership of personal data.

Governments

Isn’t our government responsible to protect the safety and rights of its citizens?

At the end of the day: yes. In democratic societies, citizens should be able to rely on the social contract, allocating

the authority to enforce laws and penalise criminals to the legitimate government of their country. The short

overview of international agreements governing science and technology presented above, illustrates a growing

consensus that no single government has the capacity to take this responsibility on its own. We need a paradigm

change from ‘government’ to ‘governance’.



33

What does this new role of governments look like?

Governments keep the primary responsibility for protecting the safety and rights of their citizens. In addition,

emerging technologies call for complementary cooperation with stakeholders in governance and public dialogue.

What does this regulatory responsibility mean?

Even regulation is not something where each individual government can act on its own. Governments keep the

primary responsibility for regulating access to their market and for permissible activities at their territory. In

general, the importance of international treaties and negotiations with other governments has increased due to

globalization of the economy. In our case, where we are discussing the impacts of nano-enabled products, these

and other emerging technologies raise unprecedented issues, calling for engagement with experts and

stakeholders to be able to grasp their complexity.

How can governments facilitate governance?

Rest assured: regulations governing the introduction of the market of new products exist and are also valid for

products enabled by new technologies including nanotechnology. The problem is that the parliaments adopting

these laws originally could not foresee potential future consequences of these new technologies, simply because

they did not exist yet. While future scenarios and other foresight techniques can help us imagine what could

happen in the future, the potential foreseen risks and societal issues remain uncertain. To be fair, formal

legislation cannot be based on such uncertainties. This dilemma can partly be resolved by complementary soft

law and voluntary self-regulation. An example of soft law is the European Commission recommendation for a

code of conduct for nanosciences and nanotechnologies research (2008):

http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/the-policy_en.html#code. An example of voluntary self-

regulation is the nano-risk framework proposed by DuPont and Environmental Defense (2007):

http://www.nanoriskframework.org/.

Governments should determine the boundary conditions and enable stakeholders to participate in common

governance. This includes subsidising dialogue projects (like Nano2All), but also seriously listening to the

recommendations and considering ways to implement them.

What role should government representatives play in public dialogue?

As part of the decision-making process, broad and transparent consultations with all interested stakeholders

must be undertaken. Policy makers must clearly explain how the outcomes of dialogue have been taken into

account in decision making. Politicians must be accountable to their citizens about decisions they have taken.

Scientists

What can we expect scientists to contribute to responsible innovation?

Scientists and engineers are the people who discover new knowledge and invent new technologies. Already in

the 1970s, their special responsibility for the impacts of research was recognised. This is illustrated by the

http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/the-policy_en.html#code

http://www.nanoriskframework.org/



34

abovementioned UNESCO declaration of 1974, calling for training in ethical and social aspects of research.

Currently, scientists are allocated the following role responsibilities.

Doing excellent science

What do you mean by ‘excellent science’?

The starting point is of course following the scientific method which is commonly accepted in each discipline.

For example, laboratory sciences use experimentation under controlled conditions to test and improve theories,

while humanities apply phenomenology (explaining what they observe) and hermeneutics (re-interpreting old

theories and concepts).

Currently, there is furthermore a lot of attention for research integrity. Individual researchers are taught for

example that they should not commit fraud or plagiarise the work of colleagues without clearly citing the source.

The role of the institutional context which may either facilitate or obstruct research integrity is usually hardly

discussed in such guidelines. A recent authoritative example is: Inter Academy Partnership. Doing Global

Science. A Guide to Responsible Conduct in the Global Research Enterprise. Princeton University Press,

Princeton and Oxford. 2016 http://www.interacademycouncil.net/24026/29429.aspx

Other ethical principles are specific for an application domain. For example, nanomedicine calls for biomedical

ethics. One relevant principle, beneficence means that the research should benefit the participants in clinical

trial. Non-maleficence is another word for ‘do no harm’. Patients and volunteers have the right of informed

consent, meaning that they are explained what will be done with their data, what the potential risks are and that

they may withdraw from the experiment at any time. Applications of nanoelectronics in smart textiles or brain-

computer interactions, and social science projects including interviews or observation of participants should

comply with regulations for privacy and data protection. When researchers, workers or consumers may be

exposed to nanomaterials, with unknown risks for the environment, or their health and safety, a precautionary

approach must be taken. In addition, researchers should be aware of potential military dual-use and terrorist or

criminal misuse of their research results. The European Commission has published guidelines for handling such

issues in projects funded under the Horizon 2020 research programme:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm

Targeting societal grand challenges

What are these ‘grand challenges’ and how can a basic science project address those?

Grand challenges are major problems the world is faced with, for which no adequate solution exists, and where

science and technology may contribute to a solution. Examples are the UN Sustainable Development Goals,

aiming to end poverty by 2030: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabledevelopmentgoals

It is of course much easier to address those issues in applied research projects, for example in developing new

water purification systems, improved solar panels, or new pharmaceuticals and vaccines for infectious diseases.

However, many questions in basic research are raised, because they are in the long term expected to contribute

to new technical solutions for grand challenges. Scientists in those projects can inform themselves about current

http://www.interacademycouncil.net/24026/29429.aspx

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabledevelopmentgoals



35

discussions of these challenges and reflect on what potential positive or negative future consequences may

occur if their research is successful.

Engaging stakeholders and citizens in Value-Sensitive Design

What is value-sensitive design? How does it work?

The starting point is that scientists, engineers and industrialists should reverse the order of innovation projects.

Traditionally, they would first invent a new technology, then incorporate it in products, and at the end of the

innovation cycle start worrying about potential markets and impacts on the environment and on society. Value-

sensitive design takes the opposite approach.

Scientists should start discussing with end-users, stakeholders and citizens how the product will be used, and

what are their concerns. Then, they should go back to the lab and design the product so that it addresses those

concerns. Furthermore, scientists should prevent risks by integrating risk assessment and risk management in

innovation. This includes Privacy-Enhancing Technologies for computers, internet and telecommunication, but

also Safer-by-Design (nano)materials and chemicals. Value-sensitive design may also take the form of co-

creating innovations with prospective users. However, such user-involvement may also introduce risks for those

users or infringe on patients’ or consumer rights. The European Group on Ethics in Science and Technology

EGE recently discussed dilemmas of citizen participation in health research:

https://ec.europa.eu/research/ege/pdf/opinion-29_ege_executive-summary-recommendations.pdf

If you want to learn more, the TU Delft offers an online course explaining how value sensitive design should be

done. Info: https://ocw.tudelft.nl/courses/responsible-innovation/subjects/7-value-sensitive-design/

Contributing expertise to policy making

Aren’t scientists supposed to stay in the lab and keep out of politics?

In principle, governments are responsible for protecting the safety of their citizens, and for sustainable

development. However, as mentioned before, emerging technologies including nanotechnology may undermine

the current legal framework. Regulators need expert advice to raise awareness of upcoming regulatory issues,

or emerging impacts on sustainability. Scientist have a responsibility to offer their expert advice to policy makers.

Participating in public dialogue about science and society

Should scientists play the role of expert advisors in public dialogue?

No, dialogue is not the same as popularising science. In a dialogue, each participant has an equally valuable,

though distinct, contribution to make. Be curious: try to learn from other participants and take them seriously.

Be responsive: address questions and challenges raised.

Industry

https://ec.europa.eu/research/ege/pdf/opinion-29_ege_executive-summary-recommendations.pdf

https://ocw.tudelft.nl/courses/responsible-innovation/subjects/7-value-sensitive-design/



36

Industrial companies play a key role in responsible innovation. In 2013, almost 70% of all R&D in the member

states of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was performed in private

companies. Info: http://www.oecd.org/sti/Science-brief-scoreboard.pdf. However, government policies for

responsible research and innovation are less effective in influencing the direction of this private research, which

is usually not depending on public subsidies.

What can innovative companies contribute?

The starting point is to extend commonly accepted norms for corporate social responsibility to innovation. In

cases where innovation introduces uncertain risks to society or the environment, companies are asked to share

safety data with regulators. Like scientists, companies can engage in value-sensitive design, and participate in

public dialogue about responsible innovation.

What is Corporate Social Responsibility, and what does it mean for innovation?

Corporate Social Responsibility is a form of voluntary self-regulation, mainly used by multinational companies

with business activities in countries with very different regulatory frameworks. The aim is to respect minimum

standards for sustainability and human rights. In large companies, institutionalisation and procedural

responsibility is emphasized – e.g. through management standards (ISO 26000 etc.), quality control, and

environment, health and safety. Currently, there is an international discussion about new approaches to extend

CSR to R&D and innovation. This calls for foresight (as in the SES game which will be used in the dialogue

workshop), and for precaution. Companies can use decision support tools for sustainable innovation and life

cycle thinking (Environment, Economy, Social, Human Rights), e.g. the system developed in the EU funded

project on Sustainable Nanotechnologies http://sunds.dais.unive.it/. Recently, public benchmarks of CSOs and

investors stimulate CSR through ‘naming and shaming’. An example is the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark:

https://business-humanrights.org/en/chrb. The European standardisation organisation CEN recently published

CEN Workshop Agreements for ethical impact assessment and ethics committees, which are valid for three

years. These pre-standards could be an attractive instrument for industrial companies to incorporate ethics in

their innovation activities. Info: http://satoriproject.eu/publication_type/standards/

Contribute safety data to policy making.

Why should companies share data from risk assessments with policy making?

As mentioned before, emerging technologies including nanotechnology introduce uncertain risks which may

escape existing regulation. Innovative companies are already legally obliged to protect the safety and health of

their employees and customers, and the environment – this calls for (in-house) testing. Responsible Innovation

implies sharing safety data with regulators, enabling timely adaptation of regulatory requirements. Info:

https://euon.echa.europa.eu/

Value-Sensitive Design and participate in public dialogue about responsible innovation

See scientists.

http://www.oecd.org/sti/Science-brief-scoreboard.pdf

http://sunds.dais.unive.it/

https://business-humanrights.org/en/chrb

http://satoriproject.eu/publication_type/standards/

https://euon.echa.europa.eu/



37

Civil Society Organisations

Civil Society Organisations include environmental and consumer organisations, patients’ associations and trade

unions. They are often invited by governments and others to join stakeholder dialogue for several reasons,

including representation, offering technical expertise, and introducing values and political interests in the

discussion.

Why are civil society organisations invited in dialogue?

A key role for civil society organisations is ‘giving voice’: to represent citizens sharing their concerns. Trade

unions represent workers, consumer organisations represent consumers, patients’ associations are deemed to

speak on behalf of people suffering from diseases or disabilities, which may benefit from new technologies.

Environmental groups represent people who value protection of nature and the environment. In many countries,

governments are legally required to enable participation of CSOs and citizens in consultation for environmental

policy making. This is especially the case in the 47 Parties to the United Nations Economic Committee for Europe

(UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice

in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention, 1998).

What kind of expertise are CSOs expected to contribute to governance?

Policy makers often look for technical expertise of scientific and industrial experts in governance of emerging

technologies. Some CSOs can contribute similar technical expertise. These organisations function as a kind of

consultancies or think tanks. An example is the online inventory of nanotechnology-based products compiled by

BEUC/ANEC: http://www.beuc.eu/safety/nanotechnology

More general CSO participation in governance of emerging technologies should mainly focus on political interest

and underlying values. Governance is intrinsically political, calling for explicit tabling of political interests at stake,

including those represented by industry as well as CSOs. In addition, many CSOs are skilled in expressing

underlying norms and values held dear by the people they represent. Examples of CSO positions on

nanotechnology are included in this part of the Nano2All website: http://www.nano2all.eu/stakeholders/civil-

society-organisations

Do CSOs have a special role in dialogue?

CSOs should contribute their opinions and arguments in public dialogue about emerging technologies. Like all

participants, CSO representatives should also be willing to listen to arguments and values introduced in the

dialogue by other stakeholders.

Media

What could journalists and media possibly contribute to responsible innovation? Aren’t they supposed

to limit themselves to independent reporting?

Yes, you are quite right. Journalistic freedom is the cornerstone of responsible innovation. However, journalists

have their own standards for responsible journalism, which are especially important in an age of ‘alternative

http://www.beuc.eu/safety/nanotechnology

http://www.nano2all.eu/stakeholders/civil-society-organisations

http://www.nano2all.eu/stakeholders/civil-society-organisations



38

facts’ and ‘fact-free politics’. This includes fact checking, and balanced reporting on the views of different

participants in a discussion. Reporting on science, technology and innovation introduces some additional issues.

Science journalists should try to distinguish tried and tested facts, the role of uncertainty, and underlying value

conflicts in dialogue about emerging technologies. One way to achieve such balanced reporting is by reflecting

on ethical dilemmas of case studies. Journalists can learn from their peers’ good practice examples. E.g. the

NUCLEUS project organised a discussion on RRI for journalists, reported here: http://www.eusja.org/4034-2/

Citizens

While we are all citizens, in the dialogue organised in Nano2All, we use the term for those participants who are

not invited because of a specific expertise or interest in the issues discussed. You could also call them ‘lay

persons’. Citizens can play four roles in responsible innovation: learning, participating in projects, engaging in

discussions and responsible consumption.

How can citizens learn about new technologies?

The most obvious way is simply by reading newspaper articles or watching documentaries about science and

technology. People who are aware of new technologies, and how they are discussed in public, are more inclined

to ask critical questions to experts. Suppose you meet a professor claiming that nanomedicine will bring cures

for all ills. If you have recently read an article discussing potential risks of nanomedicine, you may be more

inclined to ask critical questions, than if you have never heard of nanomedicine before. Citizens who are really

interested may of course delve into the subject and read more advanced literature about it. The website

www.nano2all.eu includes a range of recommended resources.

What does participation in citizen science projects imply?

Traditionally, universities and research organisations where ivory towers, where scientists did their work far

removed from the life worlds of most people. Nowadays, scientists increasingly ask citizens to participate in their

projects. They may for example hand out add-ons for smart phones to measure air quality (e.g.

http://ispex.nl/en/), or by asking people to report influenza-like symptoms on a website (e.g.

https://www.influenzanet.eu/). This allows citizens to contribute to Responsible Research and Innovation.

However, be critical about the division of labour of scientists and citizens. After all, the scientist normally gets

paid for his or her work, while the citizens are deemed to do it voluntarily. Be sure to be offered the opportunity

for informed consent, including the right to withdraw any time.

Why should citizens express an opinion in public dialogue?

Governments, scientists and stakeholders regularly organise dialogue events and consultations about emerging

technologies (e.g. in Nano2All). By participating, you get a chance to contribute to responsible governance. As

a citizen, you are not invited into dialogue on emerging technologies because of your expertise. Freely asking

questions can raise awareness of the experts and stakeholders of issues which have not been properly

considered. Ask the organisers what will be done with the outcomes of the dialogue.

http://www.eusja.org/4034-2/


http://ispex.nl/en/

https://www.influenzanet.eu/



39

What can I do by myself to contribute to responsible innovation?

Consume responsibly. Citizens also have power to influence the impacts on the environment or society of

products incorporating new technologies. Before buying a product (e.g. a smart phone or computer), you can

look for comparisons of the sustainability of different brands and use this information in your choice. C.f.:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/10/consumer-behaviour-sustainability-business.

In addition, you can contribute to recycling or reuse of your product after use.

Conclusion

Responsible Research and Innovation in Nanotechnology implies collaboration between all stakeholders and

citizens. Each group has distinct role responsibilities, explained above. Dialogue is needed about regulation and

governance. In addition, value sensitive design of nanoproducts requires engagement from all stakeholders and

citizens.

3.3. Results

The short reports on the preliminary results of the dialogues are available at the resources section of the

NANO2ALL website under NANO2ALL materials.8 In addition, the evaluation forms for the national multi-

stakeholder dialogues included one question relevant to the training materials: It was clear what was expected of

me. The responses are summarised in table 3.3.1 below. A good majority agreed or strongly agreed to

understanding what was expected (71%). Only 9% disagreed or strongly disagreed, while the other 20% did not

answer the multiple-choice questions. In the open questions, three participants in Italy asked for basic training or

introductory information (c.f. table 3.3.2).

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly agree No answer

France – 9p 1 6 2

Israel – 12p 1 7 4

Italy – 9p 1 5 1 2

Poland – 5p 1 4

Sweden – 10p 1 5 1 3

Total 1 3 24 8 9

Total % 2% 7% 53% 18% 20%

Table 3.3.1 Responses to question: It was clear what was expected of me.

8 http://www.nano2all.eu/resources

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/sep/10/consumer-behaviour-sustainability-business




40

Two of the open questions solicited criticism and general comments, question 5 and 6. The responses are listed in

tables 3.3.2 and 3.3.3.

France Italy Poland

Will we have the chance to

collaboratively proof read the

synthesis?

The concluding map seemed to me not very

tangible

They were

professionally

organised

Ask fewer written feedbacks An introduction to the state of the art of

nanotechnology in textiles field on

technological and economic-social aspects

and future expectations

I wouldn't change

anything

It was lacking specific research

expertise on brain machine

interfaces, and some head of

enterprises or business

The first activity was not fully convincing to me All was really fine

for me

Certain key actors of the brain

machine interface issues were not

present, this is a pity

A basic training module no comments

Not using the posters (either at the

end of the day, or after the game of

roles)

We lacked more participation from

industries, but this is normal

The section about the "actions" should have

deserved more time

To be questioned about concrete

cases (applications), for example on

what is presented on the 2 posters

The conclusions were too schematic as

compared to the scenarios

Maybe having a more solid

representation of politics and industry

The activities were very engaging, maybe there

was the need of more time in some phases

The constitution of larger panels

(absence of real political decision

makers and of specialised

researchers)

Perhaps a preparatory informative meeting

(also via e-mail)

I would say no

Table 3.3.2: Responses to open question 5: What would you have liked to see different in today’s event?



41

France Italy Poland

Online nanomaterials

Health and environmental risk is

there

To be read on brain machine

interfaces the book by Philippe

Baquié “homme augmenté

humanité diminuée »

The leading has been excellent no

comments

I have little confidence on the use it

will be done of our work to target,

regulate, define research and

innovation!

I would do a second event, involving this time the real

subjects, that is a true entrepreneur, a true researcher, and

making them interpret their own role in order in the view of

comparing the results with today's work

Some participants did not put

themselves in situation.

Also, some debates on brain

machine interfaces

Very nice welcoming, the team very

warm (very positive)

Very Good, thank you!

Table 3.3.3: Responses to open question 6: additional comments

4. Training offered to users of Nano2All website

4.1. Design

In addition to the common training, which was integrated in the programmes of the national citizens’ and

stakeholder dialogues, the work plan included an offer of webinars and customised training, c.f. box 4.

… The training will be provided mainly as webinars and overall the programme will focus on tools and concepts

on RRI and co-production of knowledge. … The other axis will be the customised stakeholder training.

Box 4: Role of webinars in stakeholder training foreseen in task 2.4.

The customised training offered to users of the Nano2All website includes an overview of relevant materials

produced in earlier projects with links to the original source. In addition, after intensive discussions with VU/VUMC

and SPI, webinars were developed further, based on the five illustrative cases included in the raw materials sent

to the science centres. The narrative was divided over PowerPoint slides, and a native English speaker presented

it in audio.



42

4.2. Implementation

The list of training materials resulting from earlier projects is depicted in the screenshot of the training section of

the Nano2All website, below.

The webinars have also been incorporated in the training section of the Nano2All website and offered to interested

users of the website. They can be downloaded from the webpage http://www.nano2all.eu/training. The first pages

of the webinars are presented in the following boxes, and the transcript is included below that.

http://www.nano2all.eu/training



43



44



45

Nano dialogue cases

Ineke Malsch, 27-9-2017, [email protected]

Explanatory note: this is the raw material of the cases in dialogue format. These cases are meant to be

presented in webinar format and incorporated in the training section of the Nano2All website. SPI is asked to

design an attractive lay-out for the presentation. The science centres can refer to the webinars in their

communication to participants in their national stakeholder dialogue, but the webinars are also offered to

other visitors of the Nano2All website.

Introduction

We offer participants in the stakeholder dialogues organised in NANO2ALL tailored training modules to address

gaps in knowledge. The cases discussed in the webinars presented here may also be interesting to other users

of the Nano2All website.

Nanomedicine for Tuberculosis case study

Why do you present this case study?

mailto:[email protected]



46

This module introduces ethical issues related to nanomedicine. We take the development of a new nanodrug

for Tuberculosis as a starting point. The roles of different stakeholders interested in this product are discussed.

This allows you to take lessons learned into account in the upcoming dialogue in NANO2ALL or in other

dialogues on responsible research and innovation in nanomedicine.

Who created this case study?

The sociologist Trust Saidi has investigated how different stakeholders perceive a new nanodrug for

Tuberculosis, which is under development (Travelling Nanotechnologies, PhD Thesis University Maastricht,

2016). He interviewed scientists, policy makers, patients, nurses and home care givers about their assessment

of risks and benefits of Rifanano before the product was available.

Why is a new nanodrug for Tuberculosis needed?

In 2015, 10.4 million patients suffered from Tuberculosis, worldwide. This resulted in 1.8 million deaths, over

95% in low- and middle-income developing countries. (Source: World Health Organisation website, 2017)

Therapies take over six months and cause severe side-effect. Patients are quarantined to ensure their therapy-

loyalty.

What nanomedicine is under development?

In South Africa, CSIR is developing Rifanano, a new targeted drug delivery system for Tuberculosis drugs. This

reduces drug intake from daily to once a week. The whole duration of the cure may possibly be limited to two

months (from six) and causes much less side-effects. Patients can probably stay home rather than in quarantine

in a hospital. Before the nanodrugs can be given to patients, their safety and efficacy must be demonstrated (by

law). This takes many years.

What do different stakeholder groups think about Rifanano?

The drug delivery group, which has developed Rifanano thinks it is a lifesaving drug, which may improve patient

compliance with the therapy. They are concerned about unknown risks of the drug, and assign the responsibility

for managing these risks to experts on risk assessment. Their time frame is long-term sustainability of the

product.

The National Institute of Occupational Health considers it a promising drug, to be used with precaution. It is

more effective, compared to conventional medicine, but they are worried about the risks and uncertainties of

nanoparticles. They assign the responsibility to producers, who should abide by the precautionary principle.

Their time frame is also long-term sustainability of the product.

Tuberculosis patients see Rifanano as a long overdue user-friendly drug, which can be used in a low dosage,

for a short period of medication. They are concerned about the known risks of conventional tuberculosis drugs

and are willing to take responsibility upon themselves for taking the drug and bearing the unknown risks. Their

time frame is urgency.



47

Nurses caring for tuberculosis patients see Rifanano as a better option, with an easy to follow prescription. They

are also concerned about the known risks of conventional tuberculosis drugs, and advocate for disclosure of the

drug and offering informed consent to the patients. Their time frame is also urgency.

Home based care givers including family members see Rifanano as a burden remover, reducing their own work

load. They pay less attention to unknown risks of nanoparticles and consider themselves responsible for making

decisions on behalf of the patients. Their time frame is also urgency.

How can we understand the context of this case?

Traditionally, patients, nurses, home care givers and other citizens are not involved in (pre-clinical) drug

development but do suffer side effects of existing drugs. Scientists, risk assessors and authorities abide by pre-

existing laws and focus on the unknown risks of the new drug. Trust Saidi acted as a bridge between both

communities.

What could more responsible nanodrug development look like?

Different stakeholders can make their own contributions to responsible nanomedicine. The starting point for

citizens is to be curious: Only after learning about the new nanodrug, could patients, nurses and care givers

form an opinion about it. However, it is important not to embrace the new opportunity without reflecting on

dilemmas. How can the risks and benefits of the nanodrug and existing therapy be balanced? Which underlying

values are at stake? Note the different assignments of responsibility. Target the right level: market acceptance

of drugs is well-regulated. Any change calls for wide public debate and political decision making.

The natural scientists in the drug delivery group already adhere by research ethics principles. They address

Value-Sensitive Design through nano-encapsulation. It could be improved if the patients, nurses and family

would have been engaged before starting the research. The social scientist could engage in science for policy

by communicating his findings to policy makers. Natural and social scientists could engage in public dialogue

exploring if the current regulations are adequate for nanodrugs.

Policy makers could reflect on the appropriateness of current regulations in balancing the need for short term

solutions and long term uncertain risk, while industry, media and CSOs could consider how to contribute to

the public dialogue.

To conclude, the complexity of the issues surrounding the development of a new nanomedicine for Tuberculosis

merits scrutiny of the interests of different stakeholders. The issues are a mix of technological, ethical, economic

and political aspects. Flexible framework regulations offering room for social experiments may be preferred to

formal universal laws.

Nanotechnology in Brain-Computer Interactions

Why do you present this case study, and who created it?



48

This case study introduces mutual learning and dialogue on neuro-enhancement technology. We discuss the

findings of the EU funded NERRI project. This allows you to take lessons learned into account in the upcoming

dialogue in NANO2ALL, or in other dialogue about responsible research and innovation.

How was mutual learning organised in the NERRI project?

The EU-funded NERRI project organised mutual learning exercises on neuro-enhancement technologies.

Experts and lay persons (visitors of a science museum or science café) participated in social experiments and

role plays. Participants can be divided into three subcultures: early adopters; those who were interested but

sceptical about risk-benefit balance; and cautious or suspicious citizens. The ambiance where the dialogue took

place influenced the learning process.

Hub Zwart and colleagues analyse these three cases:

Case 1: Super Me. In 50 years, everyone is using brain enhancers. A dialogue is held on regulation aiming to

balance personal freedom and the common good.

Case 2: Super MI. Citizens and experts discussed neuro-technologies for optimising the cognitive capabilities

of healthy people. Assisting elderly was more accepted than recreational uses.

Case 3: students enacted drama to visualise dilemmas of the use of neuro-enhancement. This helped

participants to understand the issues and take a position.

What questions should participants in the upcoming ask themselves?

Would you consider yourself an early adopter, an interested sceptic, or a cautious and suspicious citizen, if

confronted with visions of nanotechnology-enabled Brain-Computer Interactions?

What would you like to learn from other participants?

Should the aim of the dialogue be to reach consensus or to articulate different perspectives?

To conclude, the discussion on nanotechnology in Brain-Computer Interactions is a continuation of earlier

dialogue. Different positions can be taken regarding the ethical issues raised. In Nano2All, the diversity of

stakeholders is greater. As in NERRI, the ambiance and tools offered to participants can stimulate more fruitful

dialogue than in traditional discussions.

Reference:

Hub Zwart, Jonna Brenninkmeijer, Peter Eduard, Lotte Krabbenborg, Sheena Laursen, Gema Revuelta, Winnie

Toonders (2017) Reflection as a Deliberative and Distributed Practice: Assessing Neuro-Enhancement

Technologies via Mutual Learning Exercises (MLEs). Nanoethics.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11569-017-0287-4

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11569-017-0287-4



49

Nanotechnology in smart textiles



gaps in knowledge. The cases may also be relevant to people engaged in other dialogues on responsible

research and innovation. This module introduces ethical issues related to nanotechnology in smart textiles. The

current discussion on ‘big data and health’ is relevant. We discuss the roles of different stakeholders interested

in this area. This allows you to take lessons learned into account.

What is the problem with big data and health?

Sensors in clothes, mobile phones and wearables can generate a lot of data on your health. This data can be

collected in online databases and combined with data from other sources about you or other people. This and

other issues related to ‘big data and health’ is high on the policy makers agenda. The Scientific Foresight Unit

(STOA) of the European Parliament included big data and health in ‘ten more technologies which could change

our lives’ (July 2017). A potential benefit they foresee is speeding up drug testing and improving the monitoring

of risks of therapies. They also think big data may enable personalised medicine. Potential risks include data

protection issues. The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies warned for unforeseen

consequences of a paradigm shift from “’Health for all’ to ‘all for health’”, due to new health technologies and

citizen participation, in 2015. While citizens are increasingly invited to participate in health-related research, this

may also infringe on their rights. To what extent is informed consent possible, if the potential uses and

consequences are difficult to imagine, even for experts? How can ownership of someone’s own personal data

be organised effectively? What unforeseen effects may occur if health-related data on an individual from different

body-sensors and other online sources are recombined and sold commercially? How can governments

guarantee the right to be forgotten? Building upon this opinion, the International Bioethics Committee of

UNESCO is discussing ethical issues of big data and health in 2016-2017.

To conclude, big data and health raises many ethical issues. It is currently high on the policy agenda in Europe.

Not so much is known about the opinions of different stakeholders.

Further information:

International Bioethics Committee UNESCO meeting, 11-15 September 2017:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/international-bioethics-

committee/ibc-sessions/ibc-comest-sessions-paris-2017/

STOA: ‘Ten more technologies which could change our lives’ (July 2017):

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/598626/EPRS_IDA(2017)598626_EN.pdf (p 20-

21)

EGE opinion 29: the ethical implications of health technologies and citizens participation. European

Commission, 13-10-2015: https://ec.europa.eu/research/ege/pdf/opinion-29_ege_executive-summary-

recommendations.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/international-bioethics-committee/ibc-sessions/ibc-comest-sessions-paris-2017/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/international-bioethics-committee/ibc-sessions/ibc-comest-sessions-paris-2017/

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/598626/EPRS_IDA(2017)598626_EN.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/research/ege/pdf/opinion-29_ege_executive-summary-recommendations.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

https://ec.europa.eu/research/ege/pdf/opinion-29_ege_executive-summary-recommendations.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none



50

Precaution


We offer participants in the stakeholder dialogues in NANO2ALL tailored training modules to address gaps in

knowledge. This module introduces the concept ‘precaution’. I present the report on the Precautionary Principle

by the World Commission in Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and New Technologies (COMEST, 2005). Then, I

highlight the roles of different stakeholders.

What does COMEST say about the Precautionary Principle?

The precautionary principle prescribes risk management methods if there is inconclusive evidence that a

new activity may introduce risks to people, society or the environment. The concept was first introduced in

German and Swedish law-making in the 1970s. The Rio Declaration, 1992 states: “… In order to protect the

environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used

as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation…”.

The European Union communication on the Precautionary Principle (2000) states: “The precautionary principle

applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific

evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on

the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen

by the EU”. In some countries, including the USA, policy makers prefer the term ‘precautionary approach’.

COMEST considers this wording weaker than ‘precautionary principle’, because the latter tends to be associated

with legal obligations, while the former is more about good intentions.

COMEST proposed its own definition in 2005: When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable

harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm. Morally

unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is

• threatening to human life or health, or

• serious and effectively irreversible, or

• inequitable to present or future generations, or

• imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected

The judgement of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis. Analysis should be ongoing so that

chosen actions are subject to review. Uncertainty may apply to, but need not be limited to, causality or the

bounds of the possible harm.

Actions are interventions that are undertaken before harm occurs that seek to avoid or diminish the harm.

Actions should be chosen that are proportional to the seriousness of the potential harm, with consideration of

their positive and negative consequences, and with an assessment of the moral implications of both action and

inaction. The choice of action should be the result of a participatory process.



51

What happened since 2005?

The discussion on precaution has not stopped. Some CSOs prefer an even stronger version of the precautionary

principle than the EU, frequently calling for moratoriums on the introduction of new technologies on the market,

until they are proven to be safe. They seem to prefer the Wingfield statement (1998): “When an activity raises

threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some

cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

In the period between 2013 and 2016, industry leaders have promoted the ‘innovation principle’ at expense

of precaution in EU policies for ‘better regulation’. They criticise the precautionary principle for being too vague

and blocking innovation. The European Political Strategy Centre led by EU policy advisor Robert Madellin

outlined “Europe’s mission to innovate” at the request of EC President Juncker.

What questions does this case raise for participants in stakeholder dialogue?

Do you see a role for precaution in responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology? Which interpretation

do you consider most helpful and why?

To conclude, precaution has been a key element of sustainable development and risk governance of emerging

technologies with potential impacts on human health and the environment since the 1990s. The concept remains

controversial until today. No consensus definition has yet emerged.

References:

COMEST (2005) The precautionary principle: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf

EU summary of legislation: the precautionary principle: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al32042

Wingspread (1998) statement on the precautionary principle:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wingspread_Statement_on_the_Precautionary_Principle

Robert Madellin (2016) Opportunity Now: Europe’s Mission to Innovate. EPSC strategic note 15.

http://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/strategic-notes/opportunity-now-europe%E2%80%99s-mission-

innovate_en

Risk governance of nanotechnology



gaps in knowledge. These cases may also be interesting for people engaged in other dialogues about

responsible research and innovation. This module introduces risk governance of nanotechnologies. We analyse

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al32042

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al32042

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wingspread_Statement_on_the_Precautionary_Principle

http://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/strategic-notes/opportunity-now-europe%E2%80%99s-mission-innovate_en

http://ec.europa.eu/epsc/publications/strategic-notes/opportunity-now-europe%E2%80%99s-mission-innovate_en



52

the controversy over the Dupont-Environmental Defense Nano Risk Framework. We discuss the roles of

different stakeholders in this controversy.

What is the Dupont-Environmental Defense Nano Risk Framework?

In 2006-2009, the Chemicals company Dupont and the CSO Environmental Defense Fund engaged in

confidential discussions about risk governance of nanomaterials. They agreed on a common Nano Risk

Framework with these goals:

• Establish a process to ensure the responsible development of nanoscale materials

• Develop a tool to organize and share information with stakeholders

• Facilitate public understanding of nanotechnology

• Provide input for government policy on nanotechnology safety

At the end of the project, both parties considered it a success.

Others were not so enthusiastic. A group of over 20 other CSOs criticized this industry-CSO cooperation and

the resulting framework as being ‘fundamentally flawed’ in 2007. Their main objections were:

• CSO participation in confidential discussions with industry legitimizes the corporate activities

• Voluntary measures delay or weaken compulsory formal legislation

Analyst Lotte Krabbenborg considers the collaboration of Dupont and Environmental Defense a good example

where a company and a CSO engage in mutual learning rather than contributing their prior expertise in a

discussion. She highlights how new publics are forming in response to the emergence of nanotechnology, by

applying a theory proposed by Dewey.

How can we interpret what happened in this case?

The uncertain risks of nanomaterials challenge the existing regulatory framework for chemicals. This framework

is scientific evidence based and political. The company and civil society organisation co-designed an

intermediary step aiming for responsible governance of nanomaterials in the absence of sufficient data required

by regulators. In their protected space, neither policy makers, nor academics participated – it was neither

political, nor scientific. Such an innovative attempt at risk governance was welcomed by other companies, but

criticised by other CSOs – does it favour industry at the expense of society?

What questions should we ask ourselves?

Industry:

How would your company balance the need for confidentiality and novel opportunities for responsible co-

creation?

CSOs:



53

What would be your organisation’s solution to the dilemma of fostering responsible innovation while avoiding

legitimising irresponsible activities?

Others:

Could you imagine a role for government, academia, media and citizens in developing risk governance for

nanotechnology?

To conclude, risk governance has been discussed and experimented with for over ten years. The optimal

solution has not yet been found. Constructive cooperation of different stakeholders is required. Trust and

trustworthiness are essential preconditions.

References:

DuPont-EDF (2007): http://business.edf.org/projects/featured/past-projects/dupont-safer-nanotech/

ETC-group (2007): http://www.etcgroup.org/content/civil-societylabor-coalition-rejects-fundamentally-flawed-

dupont-ed-proposed-nanotechnology

Krabbenborg, L. (2013). DuPont and environmental defense fund co-constructing a risk framework for nanoscale

materials: An occasion to reflect on interaction processes in a joint inquiry. Nanoethics, 7(1), 45–54.

Krabbenborg, L. Creating Inquiry Between Technology Developers and Civil Society Actors: Learning from

Experiences Around Nanotechnology. Sci Eng Ethics (2016) 22:907–922

4.3. Results

The results of this online training offer have been measured by the number of page views of the webpage on

training: 443. We have no data on the number of downloads.

http://business.edf.org/projects/featured/past-projects/dupont-safer-nanotech/

http://www.etcgroup.org/content/civil-societylabor-coalition-rejects-fundamentally-flawed-dupont-ed-proposed-nanotechnology

http://www.etcgroup.org/content/civil-societylabor-coalition-rejects-fundamentally-flawed-dupont-ed-proposed-nanotechnology



54

5. Conclusions and recommendations

As mentioned in the introduction, the training activities presented in this report were meant to contribute to two

main objectives of the project:

1. To establish a European-wide sustainable platform for mutual learning, informed dialogue and

societal engagement in responsible nanotechnology

2. To perform a series of multi-stakeholder training activities to address knowledge gaps between

various types of actors and to develop a shared understanding of the benefits and risks of advancing

responsible nanotechnology via constructive multi-stakeholder dialogues

This implies that the role of the training was never intended as a goal in itself, but as an instrument to facilitate

dialogue, engaging a wide variety of stakeholders with different levels and types of relevant knowledge.

Accordingly, the design of the training materials followed the development of the dialogue methodology, and

targeted specific needs and time slots in the programmes of the dialogue events. Sustainability of the training offer

is ensured by incorporating materials relevant to a wider audience in the training section of the Nano2All website.

As planned, the citizens participating in the citizens’ dialogues were offered different materials than the participants

in the stakeholder dialogues. The materials were presented in the same design as the other dialogue materials,

allowing the training to blend in seamlessly in the overall programme of the citizens’ dialogues. The responses to

the corresponding questions in the evaluation form indicate that this approach was mostly effective, as the

information was clear to most participants and the majority understood what was expected of them in the meeting.

In the open questions, some participants asked for more prior information. Because the ones involved in preparing

the training materials were not actually present during the workshop, it is not possible to retrieve whether these

requests were adequately answered.

The training materials prepared for the national multi-stakeholder dialogues covered all the aspects listed in the

description of task 2.4 in the workplan. The professional participants recruited by the science centres were all very

busy people, who were deemed unlikely to be willing and able to spend much time on preparing for the dialogues.

Therefore, rather than inviting each participant to fill in an online training needs self-assessment tool and sending

them a customised training offer9, it was left to the discretion of the local organisers to integrate the raw training

materials in their dialogue workshop materials. Even though the evaluation form did not include a question targeting

this raw material, the majority of the participants understood what was expected of them, suggesting that the

information offered was adequate. Three Italian participants asked for more prior information in the open questions,

but it is not clear whether they were pointed to the information on the Nano2All website.

Webinars and training materials from other projects have been uploaded to the training section of the website for

the benefit of other users of the Nano2All website. This way, sustainability of the mutual learning fostered by

Nano2All will be achievable.

To conclude, letting the design of the training materials follow the development of the dialogue methodology

contributed to the usefulness of the materials to the participants in the dialogues. This required some flexibility of

9 This was envisaged originally in the report D2.3, Training Needs Self-Assessment Tool.



55

the partners involved in WP 2 (training) and WP 3 (dialogue), and close communication with the project coordinator

and with the project officer.

Recommendations:

1) The planning of training in future RRI projects should be described rather openly, to allow for smooth

integration of training in dialogues and mutual learning activities.

2) The persons organising the workshops should be more engaged in developing the training materials, e.g.

by incorporating both tasks in the same work package. Alternatively, the persons responsible for the

training could be given a role in the workshop (even though this could be more time consuming).

3) A lot of attractive videos and documents targeting the different stakeholder groups have already been

produced in earlier projects. We made good use of these materials. Future projects should do the same

to create a cost-effective and rich learning environment. This calls for data curation rather than the

production of new contents.

4) The added value of incorporating the development of training materials addressing the knowledge gaps

of participants in dialogue events has proven to be more limited than expected. Nevertheless, in general,

there is a need for awareness raising and capacity building for governance of nanotechnologies and other

emerging technologies among stakeholders. This could be better offered as a separate activity, not

directly linked to dialogue events where people lack the time to educate themselves.



56

Documents

D2.4 Training Report - irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com · NANO2 TRAINING REPORT | DELIVERABLE D2.4 ALL •SOCIETAL ENGAGEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE NANOTECHNOLOGY 2 Deliverable number: D2.4