Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Using a Deliberative Exercise To Foster Public Engagement in Nanotechnology Angela R. Jones,†,⊥ Ashley A. Anderson,∥ Sara K. Yeo,‡ Andrew E. Greenberg,§ Dominique Brossard,‡ and John W. Moore*,† †
Department of Chemistry, ‡Department of Life Sciences Communication, and §Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of WisconsinMadison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, United States ∥ Department of Journalism and Technical Communication, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, United States ABSTRACT: Nanotechnology is an emerging technology poised to benefit society both technically and socially, but as with any new advance, there is potential risk. This paper describes a novel deliberative exercise involving nanotechnology that engages the public in debate regarding the funding of nanotechnology-related research while also discussing potential risks and benefits of this emerging field of science. In a 2-h time frame, participants are provided with general background terminology and examples of advances in nanotechnology in 10 different research areas. The participants are then asked to reach consensus on how the funding should be distributed among these 10 areas. Overall, we found that participants gained factual knowledge and confidence in their knowledge. They valued learning about nanotechnology and the opportunity to discuss a real-world relevant topic with others. KEYWORDS: General Public, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Public Understanding/Outreach, Nanotechnology
■
INTRODUCTION “Democracy”, according to John Dewey, American philosopher and educator, “is a way of personal life controlled not merely by faith in human nature in general but by faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action if proper conditions are furnished...To cooperate by giving differences a chance to show themselves because of the belief that the expression of difference is not only a right of the other persons but is a means of enriching one’s own life-experience, is inherent in the democratic personal way of life”.1 The hallmark of democracy is that through discussion and consultation with the broader publics we can reach sound decisions, even in the context of an emerging technology like nanotechnology where the body of scientific knowledge is still rapidly growing. In 2003, the United States Congress highlighted the benefit of including broader publics in decision making as nanotechnology develops when it enacted the Twenty-First Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which included a statute that called for “the convening of regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizens’ panels, consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate”.2 The result has been numerous public engagement activities and nationwide surveys assessing the attitudes and perceptions of nanotechnology. Overall, the broader publics are generally unfamiliar with nanotechnology, and attitudes toward nanotechnology are more positive than negative.3−5 In this paper we describe a novel deliberative exercise developed by the Nanoscale Science and Engineering © 2014 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Center at the University of WisconsinMadison and the impact it has on its participants.
■
BACKGROUND The public engagement efforts in nanotechnology that have taken place globally in the past decade include both one-way and two-way communication efforts between experts and the public and can be motivated by educating the public, fostering trust in science and the government, influencing policy, or empowering the public to participate further. Kurath and Gisler review the projects that took place in the United Kingdom and Europe in 2005 and 2006, and they note that most of the projects merely sought to increase public understanding as opposed to encouraging “exchange and mutual learning”.6 Other activities that rely on more deliberative participation in nanotechnology include the Madison Citizens’ Consensus Conference,7 the National Citizens’ Technology Forum,8 NanoJury UK,9 the Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment publifocus,10 parallel deliberative workshops in the United States and United Kingdom on energy and health nanotechnologies,11 South Carolina Citizens’ School of Nanotechnology (SCCSN),12 and NanoFutures.13 A detailed description of these activities is beyond the scope of this article, but of particular interest are the consensus conferences that have been extensively assessed for gains from participation. Since 1987, the Danish Board of Technology (now The Danish Board of Technology Foundation) has held consensus Published: January 23, 2014 179
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400517q | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 179−187
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
better decision-makers outside of the classroom. One approach to including socioscientific issues into science education is through deliberation as it is founded on the virtues of discussion and evaluation, which are integral to the practice of science. Duschl and Osborne argue that debate and argumentation in the form of explaining and examining evidence are “central to doing and learning science”,20 and not including it in teaching science “is to fail to represent a core component of the nature of science or to establish a site for developing student understanding”.20 One example of the incorporation of deliberation into science curriculum is a consensus conference project for secondary science students described by Kolstø.21 In the exercise, students are divided into “expert groups” and one “lay group”. Each expert group researches one aspect of the controversial topic and presents it to the lay group whose objective is to ask clarifying questions, discuss, and come to a consensus recommendation. Kolstø lauds the consensus conference format as it encourages critical thinking about scientific information and increases knowledge relevant to students’ day-to-day lives.21 In summary, both public engagement and science education research support the use of deliberation in socioscientific issues. It has the potential to foster instrumental and communicative and reflexive learning, to encourage critical thinking to aid in better decision-making, and to empower participants to participate further.
conferences in Denmark as a means of including the public in the assessment of emerging technologies.14 The results of the conferences are used to inform the Danish parliament, though at the time this paper was written, the future connection between the Foundation and parliament was undecided. Internationally heralded in the field of public participation, the work of the Danish Board of Technology has inspired many public engagement practices globally. In a consensus conference, as described by Powell and Kleinman,7 a small (12−15 people) and diverse group of citizens meets three times to discuss a particular scientific issue and develop recommendations for handling the issue. During the first meeting, they discuss background material received prior to the first meeting. In the second meeting, they are given the opportunity to ask questions of experts in the field. In the final meeting, they write a report of their findings and recommendations that can be disseminated to the public and government officials.7 Two consensus conferences have been held on nanotechnology in the United States: Madison Citizens’ Consensus Conference7 in Madison, WI in spring 2005 and the larger, multicity National Citizens’ Technology Forum (NCTF)8 in spring 2008. The former focused on nanotechnology while the latter examined human enhancement due to advancements in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science. The NCTF also incorporated an online deliberation component to overcome potential geographic limitations of participation.15 The participants’ gains during these types of deliberative exercises include more than just increased knowledge about the topic at hand but also an appreciation for the opinion of others and their role in society. During a consensus conference on telecommunications, Guston noted gains in lay participants’ “substantive knowledge about telecommunications technology and policy, procedural knowledge about consensus conferences and the role of citizens in public decision making, and reflexive knowledge about themselves and their place in society”.16 Similarly, in Cobb’s17 assessment of the impact of the NCTF on the participating citizens, he reported significant increase in factual knowledge and confidence in their knowledge. He also found that the participants “[felt] more trusting of others, and they felt more capable of being able to participate in making policy”, but he noted that they also felt less likely to believe their efforts would lead to actual policy change.17 Other fields observe similar learning gains in participatory exercises. Sinclair et al.18 review 15 years of research in various implementations of public participation in environmental assessment in Canada. They observed four subcategories of instrumental and communicative learning in participants:18 • Instrumental learning: “scientific and technical knowledge, legal/administrative/political procedures, social and economic knowledge, and potential risks and impacts” • Communicative learning: “insight into one’s own interests, insight into interests of others, communication strategies and methods, and social mobilization” While the impact of participatory exercises on the greater public is valuable, science education literature also documents benefits to incorporating socioscientific issues into science curriculum. In a review of empirical work on socioscientific inquiry, the findings of Sadler et al.19 support that students not only gain science content knowledge and an understanding of the nature of science, but also this can equip students to be
■
PARTICIPATIVE EXERCISE CASE STUDY
In collaboration between the Education/Outreach Group and the Societal Implications Group of the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center at the University of WisconsinMadison, we have developed an outreach activity designed to engage adults in a discussion on nanotechnology through a deliberative exercise. We seek to understand how this exercise impacts the participants’ perception of nanotechnology and also their ability and desire to engage further with the issue. A detailed description of the exercise is found in the Study Context section. Briefly, during the 2-h exercise, participants are given a gentle introduction to basic vocabulary and concepts associated with nanotechnology and then learn about more specific examples of advances in nanotechnology in 10 different research areas. They are then asked to reach consensus on how an annual budget of $1.5 billion should be allotted to each research area. In this quite short time frame, participants with no pre-existing awareness of nanotechnology can comfortably take part in a discussion with their peers about an emerging technological issue. The uniqueness of this exercise lies in the distribution of knowledge among the participants. The group (ideally 20 participants) is divided into 10 pairs, and each pair is assigned one of 10 different research areas to present to the whole group. Consequently, each pair becomes the “citizen expert” on a particular area of research and thus of equal importance to everyone else in the discussion. Our objective is to study the impact this deliberative exercise has on the participants by asking these research questions: • What do participants learn and value from the deliberative exercise? • How does the deliberative exercise affect their awareness, support, knowledge, knowledge-confidence, interest, and future engagement with nanotechnology? 180
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400517q | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 179−187
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
consist of online, slide-based packets of information about nanotechnology advances in 10 different areas of research. For the activity described in this paper, the pre-existing materials were updated to appeal to an adult audience and to reflect more recent advancements based on the results of peer-reviewed publications that were appropriately referenced in the slides. An additional 10 slides were inserted to all packets to provide participants with basic nanotechnology terminology and background information about the broader meaning of nanotechnology. Additionally, one of the 10 original research areas (education) was removed and replaced with a packet that specifically covered safety and societal implications research. The final 10 research areas are the following: • Aerospace • Agriculture and food • Electronics and computing • Energy • Environment, cleaning up the • Manufacturing and consumer products • Medicine and healthcare • Military and defense • Safety and societal implications • Transportation
To determine the impact, participants were given pre- and postsurveys that include Likert-type scaled questions (pre- and postsurvey) and open-ended questions (postsurvey only).
■
STUDY CONTEXT AND PARTICIPANTS
Participants
Our study included four groups that met at different sites in a midwestern city in the United States from April to September 2011. The groups included: Group A, a preformed group for retirees that meets weekly to discuss or learn about topics in life sciences; Group B, a preformed group that meets monthly at a local pub to discuss the latest advances in the scientific fields of invited professors, researchers, or other experts; Group C, volunteers who met at a library in response to e-mail and poster solicitations for participants for the study; and Group D, students at a large university in the midwestern United States enrolled in an introductory chemistry class for nonscience majors during the first week of their laboratory sessions. In Group A, 15 people participated in the activity but only 13 completed both pre- and postsurveys. In Group B, all 18 participants completed both pre- and postsurveys. In Group C, only 7 of 8 participants completed both pre- and postsurveys. Approximately 200 students participated in the activity with Group D (10 debates of ∼20 students/debate), but only 67 agreed to participate in the research study, and only 55 completed both the pre- and postsurveys. Participants in all groups were given a $10 Amazon.com gift card for completing both the pre- and postsurveys.
Intervention
The entire activity took place in 2 h. After participants arrived, they were asked to complete the presurvey. Participants were then paired with another participant sitting in close proximity and randomly handed a packet from one of the 10 research areas. Participants were also given three red index cards and three green index cards. They spent 30−40 min going through assigned packets to choose three benefits (green index cards) and three perceived risks (red index cards) in their assigned area. Each pair was allotted 2 min to present their benefits and perceived risks to the whole group. Some participants chose to “act out” the results of their research as a persuasive argument to convince their fellow participants of the importance of funding their assigned area, while others chose to only read off the results of their research. If there were fewer than 20 participants (Groups A and B), some topics were assigned to only one participant, but all topics were represented in the discussion. If there were fewer than 10 participants (Group C), the facilitator provided the group with comments collected from previous implementations of the activity for areas that tended to be less contentious (e.g., transportation and aerospace). With the exception of the Safety and Societal Implications packet, the background packets do not explicitly describe risks associated with the research area of interest. Thus, we ask the participants to choose three perceived risks. This was a conscious decision, not to bias the participants but rather to encourage them to rely on their own life experiences and perspective in deciding what they think is risky. Consensus conferences and the like sample the public to gain perspectives that “experts” might not have considered. If we had chosen to provide ready-made risks, we would be biasing the participants with what we (the authors) perceive as risky. This would be counter to our purpose: to acknowledge that the lay-public should and can contribute to decisions of a highly technical nature and to enable participants to contribute to technical discussions in the future. After the participants agreed on their risks and benefits, the facilitators then clearly outlined the objective of the activity and
Demographics
A summary of the demographic information for participants who completed both the pre- and postsurveys can be found in Tables 1 and 2. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 76, and Table 1. Age of Research Participants Overall and by Group Descriptive Statistic
All
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
n Mean age Standard deviation Median age Minimum age Maximum age
93 34.48 21.00 20 18 76
13 69.00 3.54 68 64 76
18 45.00 14.98 43.5 22 68
7 62.29 11.64 66 37 71
55 19.35 2.374 19 18 31
the median age for Group D was lower compared to the other three groups. Group D also had less formal education. For example, 87% of participants in Groups A, B, and C compared to only 5% of participants from Group D had completed a degree from a two-year college (or a higher degree) prior to participating in the activity. The majority of participants who completed the pre- and postsurveys were female, though in Groups A, B, and C the majority of all participants were male. The participants were also predominantly Caucasians. Description of Instructional Materials
Instructional materials for the intervention were created based on materials originally developed by Jeanne Nye, teacher at Lake Mills Middle School in Lake Mills, WI, and Andrew Greenberg, Coordinator of Education and Outreach for the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center at the University of WisconsinMadison, during a Research Experience for Teachers (RET) project to create a nanotechnology-based webquest for middle school students. The pre-existing materials 181
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400517q | J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91, 179−187
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Table 2. Demographics of Research Participants Overall and by Group All Demographic Gender Ethnicity
Education completed
Male Female White/Caucasian Hispanic Asian Native American High school/GEDa Some college Two-year college degree Four-year college degree Master’s degree Doctoral degree Professional degree (MD, JD)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
38 55 84 3 5 1 32 25 2 14 13 6 1
41 59 90 3 5 1 34 27 2 15 14 6 1
8 5 11 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 1
62 38 85 0 8 8 0 0 0 31 31 31 8
14 4 17 0 1 0 0 5 2 7 3 1 0
78 22 94 0 6 0 0 28 11 39 17 6 0
4 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 1 0
57 43 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 71 14 0
12 43 49 3 3 0 32 20 0 2 1 0 0
22 78 89 5 5 0 58 36 0 4 2 0 0
58% of participants in Group D indicated that their highest education completed was “High school/GED” though they were enrolled in a college course, so a more accurate selection would be “Some college”.
a
read a script defining a consensus and explaining the option to block the consensus or “stand aside” (a participant disagrees with the consensus position but does not block the consensus). Participants then voted for the two research areas that should be allotted the greatest amount of money. Participants were encouraged to vote and argue based on their own opinion regardless of their assigned research area. The results of the vote were tallied and used to rank the research areas in a preliminary order. The facilitators then led the group in a 20− 30 min discussion of how well the preliminary order reflects the priorities of the whole group. After the group reached an agreement regarding the order, the group spent 20−30 min deliberating over what percentage of the $1.5 billion should be allotted to each group. After a consensus was reached, participants completed the postsurvey. For Group D, the implementation of the activity was slightly modified to accommodate a shorter in-laboratory time frame of 1.5 h. The students were randomly assigned one of the 10 research areas during the week prior to their in-laboratory session intervention and asked to complete the presurvey online before researching their assigned area. After the survey, they were instructed to spend at most 40 min researching their area using the activity Web site22 in order to complete a worksheet that required identifying three benefits and three perceived risks within their assigned research area. Once in their laboratory session, the students were given 10 min to collaborate with other students assigned the same research area in order to come to an agreement to the three benefits and three perceived risks to share with their laboratory section. The remainder of the activity was implemented as described above with the exception that the students completed the postsurvey online after the laboratory session rather than immediately after the intervention.
■
Table 3. Kruskal-Wallis Test of Significance for Impact Indicators by Group Impact Indicators
X2 Values
p Values
Familiarity Knowledge (presurvey) Knowledge (postsurvey) Knowledge confidence (presurvey) Knowledge confidence (postsurvey) Interest (presurvey) Interest (postsurvey) Support (presurvey) Support (postsurvey) Feeling informed Future engagement
36.471 0.991 3.839 3.287 7.516 36.160 17.941 16.451 12.041 17.654 13.925
