Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

What have we learned from public engagement?

Nature Nanotechnology volume 2, pages 262–263 (2007)Cite this article

The results of exercises in which members of the public discuss nanotechnology with scientists might not be surprising but, as Richard Jones explains, they are still worthwhile.

Three years on from the report, and with the UK's Nanotechnology Engagement Group2, which I chair, due to publish its final report next month, it is worth asking ourselves what we have learned from all this activity. It is clear that nanotechnology has not, for better or worse, risen particularly high on the public agenda. Despite all the talk of nanotechnology as “the new GM”, the issue really hasn't caught fire in that way (although a recent report3 criticizing the UK government for failing to adequately fund research into the health risks posed by nanoparticles, as recommended by the 2004 report, was widely covered in the British media). Some might argue that the very fact that nanotechnology has remained less controversial than expected should be seen as a success story for public engagement. But, equally, it could be argued that nanotechnology's low public profile represents a failure for those working on public engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties (The Royal Society, London, 2004); www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm.

  2. Final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group, to be published in June 2007; www.involve.org.uk/aboutneg.

  3. Beringer, J. et al. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: A Review of Government's Progress on its Policy Commitment (Council for Science and Technology, London, 2007); www2.cst.gov.uk/cst/news/Files/nano_review.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Richard Jones is in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Sheffield. r.a.l.jones@sheffield.ac.uk,

    Richard Jones

Authors
  1. Richard Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, R. What have we learned from public engagement?. Nature Nanotech 2, 262–263 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.123

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.123

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Find nanotechnology articles, nanomaterial data and patents all in one place. Visit Nano by Nature Research