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.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

The complexity of public engagement

Nature Nanotechnology volume 7, pages 77–78 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor

Nanotechnology has been the subject of a large number of public engagement exercises over the past decade, but all this activity has had little impact on government policy formulation1,2 because governments tend to favour their own forms of engagement. As Cohen has argued in a different context, the outcomes from such activities reflect the particular institutional constraints under which they are made3. Moreover, efforts to bring different stakeholders together to share different perspectives have tended to lead to competition rather than cooperation as these groups have competed with each other in their attempts to represent the best interests of the public, albeit generally from their own points of view.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

References

  1. Singh, J. Polluted waters: The UK Nanojury as Upstream Public Engagement (2006); http://www.nanojury.org.uk/pdfs/polluted_waters.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  2. Toumey, C. Nature Nanotech. 6, 605–606 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen, J. in Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology (eds Goodin, R. & Petit, P.) Ch. 10 (Blackwell, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cormick, C. in Public Engagement in Nanotechnology Commercialization (ed. Tsuzuki, T.) Ch. 13 (Pan Stanford, in the press).

  5. Binder, A. R., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D. & Gunther, A. C. Risk Analysis 31, 324–334 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Polit. Behav. 32, 303–330 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wickson, F., Delgado, A. & Kjølberg, K. L. Nature Nanotech. 5, 757–578 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Community Interest and Engagement with Science and Technology in Victoria (Victorian Department of Innovation, Industry, and Regional Development (DIIRD), June 2007); available via http://www.business.vic.gov.au

  9. Public Attitudes to Science (Research Councils UK, 2008); http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/scisoc/pas08guide.pdf

  10. Kearnes, M. & Wynne, B. NanoEthics 1, 131–142 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Nets

  12. Stilgoe, J. Nanodialogues (Demos, 2005); http://go.nature.com/rZG4aa

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, GPO Box 9839, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

    Craig Cormick

Authors
  1. Craig Cormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig Cormick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cormick, C. The complexity of public engagement. Nature Nanotech 7, 77–78 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing