Monitoring Public Opinion On Nanotechnology In Europe European Platform

monitoring public opinion on nanotechnology in europe european platform on nano outreach and dialogue (node) (grant agreement

Monitoring public opinion on Nanotechnology in Europe
European Platform on Nano Outreach and Dialogue (NODE)
(Grant Agreement NMP.2011.3-4-290575)
D3.3 Discussion Game
April 2013
Final version – V 1.0


TRANSLATION BY SCIENTIX (www.scientix.eu)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
Unported License.
Project
Project acronym:
NANOPINION
Project full title:
Monitoring public opinion on Nanotechnology in Europe
Grant agreement no.:
290575
Funding scheme:
Coordination Action
Project start date:
1 May 2011
Project duration:
30 months
Call topic:
NMP.2011.1.3-4: European Platform on Nano Outreach and Dialogue (NODE)
Project web-site:
www.nanopinion.eu
Document
Deliverable number:
D3.3
Deliverable title:
Discussion Game
Due date of deliverable:
M12
Editors:
Maria Zolotonosa, Rosina Malagrida, Frank Kupper
Authors:
Maria Zolotonosa, Rosina Malagrida
Reviewers:
SIG
Participating beneficiaries:
Ecsite, IrsiCaxia, BfR, ZSI, ORT, AU
Work Package no.:
3
Work Package title:
Content Preparation for the Nanopinion platform
Work Package leader:
ORT
Work Package participants:
ZSI, ORT, EUN, ECSITE, AU, IRSICAXIA, BFR, GUARDIAN, MUNDO, COURRIER,
TICONUNO, SOLE, TURNEY
Dissemination level:
PU
Nature:
R
Version:
1
No of pages (including cover):
12
Table of Contents
=================
Executive Summary 4
1. Introduction 4
1.1. Facilitating the exchange of arguments 4
1.1.1. Imagination 5
1.1.2. Playfulness 5
1.1.3. Reflection 5
1.1.4. Dialogue 5
2. Setting 5
3. Performers 6
4. Big entrance 6
5. Materials 6
6. Part 1 (Script) 6
7. Part 2 (Feedback) 11
8. Evaluation 12
Executive Summary
This document presents a theatrical discussion game exploring the
topic of nanotechnologies. This is a new format produced specifically
by and for the NanOpinion project. It uses the techniques of
theatrical debate. The game is aimed at informal semi-public settings,
where passers-by can participate without spending too much time.
Participants get a chance to learn, explore and debate on the
controversial issues around nanotechnologies. The game touches safety,
regulation, ethical and health issues.
1.Introduction
==============
Several Discussion Game formats, like PlayDecide1 and Discussion
Continuum were studied in order to create an approprate format for the
needs of NanOpinion. An inspiration for this theatrical discussion
game came from a Dutch project Nanopodium 2and a UK porject Meet the
Mighty Gene Machine3.
Public debates often take a rather static form, characterized by a
clear division of expertise and labour. The people on stage are the
ones with the knowledge, the people in the audience are the seekers of
knowledge. Classical science theatre follows a similar vein. A
particular story of science is told to the public, possibly followed
by a plenary reflection and discussion at the end.
Based on this, and idea came to life that it would be worth trying to
integrate the power of imagination of the theatre with the exchange of
arguments. Wouldn’t it be possible to create a truly interactive and
experimental discussion format mixing those? That is the idea behind
theatrical debate and also the idea behind the theatrical discussion
game that is presented here.
The theatrical discussion game is fun, but at the same time serious.
It adheres to the playfulness motto ‘let’s take serious things
playfully and playful things seriously’. It is light-weight in the
sense that it is easy for the audience to become involved and
participate. The game is designed as follows. It consists of two
scenes. Each scene depicts a separate aspect of the nanotechnology
future, respectively new materials/ nanoproducts and new medical
practices/using nanotechnology. The scene shows what that future can
look like. The scene is followed by a discussion with the audience
that is supported by discussion cards. After approximately 20 minutes,
the next scene starts. In total, the game takes around 30-40 minutes,
depending on the activity of the audience.
1.1.Facilitating the exchange of arguments
------------------------------------------
There is something particular about the future of nanotechnology.
First of all, we still have to imagine it and work towards it. The
future is not there yet. This also means that, at least. part of the
ideas we need to understand and evaluate this future are not there
yet. That is why a fruitful discussion of nanotechnology needs four
elements: imagination, playfulness, reflection and dialogue.
Imagination is needed to let the possible futures of nanotechnology
come to live. Playfulness is needed to be able to experiment with
these futures and come to understanding with what we think of them.
Reflection and dialogue are needed to create a framework for
understanding the technology and its future.
1.1.1.Imagination
Imagination makes it possible for us to relate to the future of
nanotechnology, to recognize it and feel connected to it. This
connection is needed to start up the deliberation process. When using
imagination discussion becames more focused, it does not drift away
along the paths to various people’s hobby horses but concentrates on
problematic situations depicted on stage. It also increases the
attention, makes it more easy to follow and to stay connected,
possibly because multiple senses are involved.
1.1.2.Playfulness
Play is the way we come to understand new things. We turn them around,
think about them, play with them. Playfulness creates a safe place to
break out the habits and routines of our
thoughts and actions. Playfulness gives us a more open and flexible
way of thinking that helps to
come to understand the complex, uncertain and dynamic reailty of the
nanotechnology future.
1.1.3.Reflection
Reflection goes two ways. First, the participants of the theatrical
debate/discussion game reflect on their own values and assumptions
underlying their opinions about nanotechnology. Second, the
participants become aware of others’ frame of references through the
discussion. The resulting double vision is what is called frame
reflection. This reflection is a deeper layer of common goals in
science communication such as awareness and opinion-forming. If you
acquire double vision through frame reflection, you become able to
understand the future of nanotechnology better but also to reframe it
in dialogue with others.
1.1.4.Dialogue
The situation shows possibilities and dilemmas that are
multi-interpretable. This openness to interpretation communicates the
complexity of issues such as the emergence of nanotechnology, but also
gives different people form different backgrounds and perspectives the
opportunity to recognise and reveal their values and assumptions. The
method of the theatre thus facilitates the important and difficult
task of dialogue: trying to see the point that other people make and
create new horizons together.
2.Setting
================
It is very important to outline the space (imaginary stage) where the
performance will take place. Do not work with a raised stage, because
the created distance will block interaction during the discussions. It
is best to create a half-circle of free space, preferably with a
closed rear wall, with space for the audience to gather around the
half-circle. If there is no rear wall, you can use room divider
screens to create it.
3.Performers
============
It is highly recommended to work with 2 professional actors, ideally
improvisational actors. You can find improvisational actors in many
European countries at the Applied Improvisation Network
(http://appliedimprov.ning.com). Another opportunity is to have one
actor and one museum facilitator/explainer. You may approach local
drama universities to seek for actors.
4.Big entrance
==============
Before the start, actors need to gather and involve the audience –
make a “big entrance”. This is very important. Below you may find a
few suggestions. You may use both or one of them, or you may think of
something yourselves, but it is essential to do something:
1. Playfully engage people that walk by to become part of the
audience, each tennis player tries to convince people to join their
team (e.g. “ You have to help me, my tennis buddy doesn’t believe
nanotechnology is good for us”/ ”You have to help me, my friend tries
to get me to use some nano-sunscreen but I don’t want to”). Players at
this stage already hand out cards (2 colours) which represent
different teams and are used for the discussions. Once people gather
in a circle, tennis players step back onto the “stage", take a look
around the audience, check who is in their team, take a pause, then
start the scene.
2. Fill small coloured balloons with air or use other soft material.
Actors can use their tennis rackets to hit them into the crowd.
5.Materials
===========
*
1 nano-sunscreen
*
1 traditional sunscreen (+30), needs to be white
*
1 nano food container
*
2 tennis rackets
*
2 sets of sports clothes
*
Coloured thick paper
*
Large A1 sheets of paper
*
Post-its
*
Pens
6.Part 1 (Script)
=================
Part 1: Short play performed by two people mixed with discussions. The
play sets the scene and the context, raising nanotechnologies issues.
Performers include participants/viewers in active discussions by
asking questions and providing cards with different opinions.
Part2: Participants are able to leave their comments and share their
opinions on special boards. This is important to have something
documented from the discussions.
Setting:
Two amateur tennis players are having a conversation in the break
between training. Preferably, one is a man, the other one a woman
(this can be chosen by the organisers). Player A is a PhD student in
Nano-materials. Player B is his/ her friend. You may give them local
names and include them in the script.
Scene I:
The weather is hot and the players are concerned about getting
sunburnt.
A: We had a great game, let’s take a short break now.
B: Yes, it’s also really hot, I hope we don’t get sunburnt.
A: I have a sunscreen, do you want to use some? (A applies his
sunscreen.)
B: Why is your sunscreen so transparent? Are you sure it will protect
you from the sun? Here, do you want to use mine? (B applies his
sunscreen and it’s white and thick)
A: It’s a new type of sunscreen. It contains nanoparticles. It looks
transparent, but it still blocks UV rays effectively.
B: Well, I prefer the traditional one, I can see it is there, which
means it is protecting me well. I don’t want skin cancer!
A: Actually, it is quite the opposite. Sunscreen should be applied
several times during the day to be effective against sun rays. My
cream protects me but it doesn’t fool me. Since I can’t see it, I tend
to apply it more often. My skin looks good and I am well protected!
B: How do you know all of that? Is that related to your research at
the university?
A: A group in my department works with nano-materials.
B: These nano-materials sound really special.
A: They are special because of their small size. At the level of atoms
and molecules scientists can create materials with new extraordinary
properties.
B: How small? Like a human hair?
A: No way, 10 000 times smaller, you can’t see it.
B: So if they are so small they can penetrate my skin and become
harmful?
A: No, scientists have done a lot of research and so far there is no
evidence showing that nanoparticles in products can be harmful to
consumers.
B: But I guess long term effects are still not known. What are you
going to say to that?
A: You are right, nobody is sure about that as the technology is quite
new. But that’s why worldwide scientists are constantly studying the
effect of nanoparticles.
B: Still, I wouldn’t risk it. I think I’ll stick to my good old white
and thick cream until I am 100% sure that it’s safe to use the other
one.
A: Well, we’ll see who looks better after I beat you today.
B: After I beat you, you mean?
A: We need to be back at the court in 10 minutes, I want to grab a
little snack. (A takes out his food container and offers B a slice of
an apple from it) Do you want to have a bite? (B has a bite.)
A decides to tease his friend for a bit.
A: You know, this food container also contains nanoparticles.
B: You are kidding me, are you serious? I am not sure I want it
anymore (B looks at the apple in despise).
A: I am serious. Some new food containers are made of plastic that
contains silver nanoparticles giving it antibacterial properties. This
way the food stored inside stays fresh for longer. For example, this
apple has been in the container for 2 days and is still fresh.
B: (B almost spits out his apple) I don’t want to eat any silver in an
apple that has gone off
A: Don’t say nonsense! I use it every day and still didn’t turn
silver. The particles are embedded in the plastic of the container and
not the air inside it. I think the risks of nanotechnologies are
exaggerated, nano-particles are not new, we inhale them from the
exhaust of engines, cigarette smoke, hair spray and burning candles.
B: OK, OK, can we start playing tennis already? You’ll be nano-size
compared to the shape I’m in today.
A and B pause in a freeze for a few seconds. Then they both turn to
the audience to find the members that were in their team at the start
(Are you still with me? Explain?). If the discussion does not start up
automatically use the cards. Otherwise use the spontaneous flow of
discussion and come back to the cards to broaden or deepen the
discussion. Those participants who have red cards are asked to read
the cards out loud and comment on them. Participants are offered both
sunscreens and the food container to try and compare. Ask further
questions to initiate a discussion.
Red cards:
These sounds like interesting products, I would use them. I accept the
risks, given the benefits.
I would not use these products. I am concerned about using products
containing nano-materials because they can be harmful.
Nanotechnologies products should be strongly regulated and only
allowed onto the market after strict testing especially for long term
effects in humans and the environment.
I support rapid nanotechnologies expansion with minimum regulation
from the authorities. This will quickly lead to new products.
Additional questions:
• Would you buy these products? Do you think they are safe?
• Which possible risks and benefits can you think of?
• Should research in NT spread and expand or should it be closely
regulated by the authorities?
• Is there a difference between using a product that needs to be
applied to the skin and those for general use?
• Can we realistically develop regulations that will govern such
rapidly developing field?
• What if research centres from our country move to other countries
with no regulation in order to avoid closed regulations?
Use probing questions to get to a deeper level in the discussion:
Can you explain X? What makes X important to you? Tell me more about
X? What exactly do you mean by X? How do you see X? What were you
thinking about when you said X? How is X related to Y? Can you give me
an example of X?
Additional cards to be printed on post-its and put on the boards in
Part2. Some arguments can also be used to facilitate the discussion:
1. I would use nanoproducts. But I wonder if the nanoscale form of its
ingredients is safe, I want more information on this.
2. It is interesting, but before I use it I would like it to be tested
specifically for safety, not only with the current safety procedures
which have allowed it to be in the market.
3. Nanotechnologies products should be allowed onto the market but
regulated. New regulations should appear in line with new scientific
developments.
4. Nanotechnologies products on the market should be regulated by
authorities, however involving public dialogue.
Scene II:
After the discussion following scene I, the actors move on to play
scene II. Actor B takes over at once, walks back on to the centre of
the stage, starting an interior monologue. The monologue is hesitant
at first, but gradually becomes more and more enthusiastic about the
possibilities of nanoscience. B walks to the front end of the stage,
enlarges his/ her body to express enthusiasm. Preferably, B
incorporates main arguments about risks and benefits uttered by the
audience in the discussion of scene I.
B: This nanoworld. It’s really a miracle. Although it may go so far.
It can really change our lives. If you can make the molecules and
structures you want, you can make everything. But on the other hand,
who knows what the effects will be in the long term! We might all die.
But, if scientists are able to improve sunscreens and lunch boxes,
wouldn’t they also be able to fight diseases and improve our health?
Imagine what that could mean? A technological cure for…who knows what.
Cancer, or just a cold.
A: In theory... in theory... we are not there yet. Lots of research
still needs to be done.
B: (interrupting A enthusiastically) But imagine! I mean it can be
used in medicine right?
A: Yes of course. It already has some medical applications. In the
future nano-scientists might even be able to improve human memory or
slow down the ageing process.
B Stop ageing. Wow, I do want to live forever. That sounds great!
A: It all sounds great, but there are some ethical concerns related to
this. Do we have the right to interfere with nature?
B: But isn’t that what progress is about? Your nanotechnologies can
make us feel better, work harder, live better lives!
A: I’m not sure if everybody wants that kind of change. People might
feel that science tampers with their personality, their identity as a
human being.
B: OK, but aren’t identities changeable? Don’t they change anyway?
A: And if this technology spreads, this will only enlarge the gap
between poor and rich. As only those who would be able to afford it,
could benefit from it.
B: Oh come on! Now YOU are the one trying to slow down innovation.
A turns to the audience. Now the roles have switched (and A became
more sceptical), A needs to find new backup in the audience (Who’s
with me? Can you explain?). If the discussion doesn’t start up
automatically, use the cards. Otherwise, use the spontaneous
discussion flow and come back to the cards to broaden or deepen the
debate. Those participants who have blue cards are asked to express
their opinion on what they have read. Discussion continues, actors
asks further question.
Blue cards:
I think ethical questions are not of primary concern. They will get
solved by themselves within time.
Ethical questions around nanotechnologies should be considered only in
case of strong opposition by the public.
Nanotechnologies are ethically neutral and independent of the
background of scientists involved.
Research should always take ethical consequences into account.
Research should only be conducted once concerned parties approve it.
Additional questions:
• Will those without enhanced bodies not be discriminated against?
• How can we make sure that new technology does not enlarge the gap
between poor and rich?
• Where is the line between curing diseases and making our bodies
better? Is there a difference between changes to your body and changes
to your mind or to your personality?
• How important is individual choice versus the state of society?
• Who and how should ethical questions be discussed?
Use probing questions to get to a deeper level in the discussion:
• Can you explain X? What makes X important to you? Tell me more about
X? What exactly do you mean by X? How do you see X? What were you
thinking about when you said X? How is X related to Y? Can you give me
an example of X?
7.Part 2 (Feedback)
===================
Participants of the discussion are now invited to speak to the
performers if they wish to discuss things further. They are also asked
to leave their opinions/comments on specially designed boards which
collect information from all participants in all sessions through the
day. The board will contain some pre-printed post-its with the same
text as in the coloured cards.
“Place your answers on the scale”
Would you use products that contain nanoparticles?
Left-Right Arrow 1
I would use them I would not use them

Left-Right Arrow 2 How should nanotechnologies products be regulated
to balance innovation with safety?
Researchers should have the freedom to do Researchers should follow
what they think is best strickt regulations

Do we need ethical debates around nanotechnologies?
Left-Right Arrow 3
There should be no research before ethical issues are broadly and
publicly discussed
There is no need for ethical debates

8.Evaluation
============
This discussion game will be played at Streetlabs withing the
NanOpinion porject. It will be evaluated as part of the general
evaluation of Streetlabs. There are two instruments for the evaluation
of the streetlabs and live events:
*
The Live event questionnaire
*
The Live event reporting template
The Live event questionnaire will be filled in by visitors of
Streetlabs. With the minimum number of at least 100 per Streetlab
(preferably filled in by all visitors). It is a short paper
questionnaire available in all project languages, which will give an
overview of participants’ feedback. The live event questionnaires will
be distributed to the participants of Streetlabs. Small souvenirs will
be provided for visitors who return the questionnaire. The collected
and filled-in paper questionnaires will be digitalised
The Live event reporting template will be filled in by the
observer/animator/moderator of the Streetlab. The streetlab report
will summarise the main lessons learned from the project’s innovative
outreach activities, including the discussion game. It will help
better understand what worked fine at the streetlab and what would
need to be improved in future. All this data will be collected and
analysed by WP6.
1 http://www.playdecide.eu/
2 http://www.nanopodium.nl
3
http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/research/sciencecommunicationunit/projecthighlights/meetthegenemachine.aspx