1. ILSI NA 2009 – © Berube 2009 January 21, 2009 – Tucson Public Understanding of Emerging Science and Technology: Eight Rules and Three Keys from the NanoExperience David M. Berube Professor, Department of Communication North Carolina State University Coordinator NCSU Public Communication of Science and Technology Project PI – NSF – NIRT Intuitive Nanotoxicology and Public Engagement & CoPI Dietram Scheufele, UWisc. CEINT – Duke University w PI Mark Weisner

2. THE WHITE PAPER NSF NIRT #0809470 – Applied Nanoscience: Public Perception of Risk 2007-2011 (http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/H ome.html). NSF NIRT #0809470 – Applied Nanoscience: Public Perception of Risk 2007-2011 (http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/H ome.html).http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/H ome.htmlhttp://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/H ome.html Workshop (August 28-29, 2008) http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/De liverables.html. Workshop (August 28-29, 2008) http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/De liverables.html. http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/De liverables.html http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/De liverables.html Power Points. Power Points. Streams and Downloads. Streams and Downloads.

3. THE NIRT Research Research Delphi questionnaire (Jan-Mar 2009). Delphi questionnaire (Jan-Mar 2009). Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) w USouth Carolina (mirror surveys). Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) w USouth Carolina (mirror surveys). Data analysis w UWisc. Data analysis w UWisc. Civic Engagement exercises (assessment) w USC. Civic Engagement exercises (assessment) w USC. Focus Group. (nanofood) w UMinn. Focus Group. (nanofood) w UMinn. Supplement Supplement History with NSF. History with NSF. Summer 2008 (144 pp.) Summer 2008 (144 pp.) Train-the-Trainer (12/08; Scheufele, Wisc.) Train-the-Trainer (12/08; Scheufele, Wisc.)

4. PUBLIC SPHERE CONSUMERS

5. Post WWII – conceptualizing the political public as consumers. Post WWII – conceptualizing the political public as consumers. Eric Hobsbawn (2007) “Participation in the market replaces participation in politics; the consumer takes the place of the citizen.” Eric Hobsbawn (2007) “Participation in the market replaces participation in politics; the consumer takes the place of the citizen.” Categories Categories Organized consumers (consumer movements). Organized consumers (consumer movements). Unorganized consumers (market research institutes). Unorganized consumers (market research institutes). Actual consumers (derived from purchasing patterns). Actual consumers (derived from purchasing patterns). PUBLIC SPHERE AS CONSUMING-CITIZENS OR CITIZEN-CONSUMERS

6. RULE 1 - STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT EQUAL. 1. 1.Public is generally disinterested in nanoscience (<70%). 2. 2.Public is overwhelmingly disinterested in science and technology policy (<90%). 3. 3.Engagement is not for everyone. Engagement exercises may not produce usable data. Sample size and methodology. 4. 4.Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive.

7. SCIENCEINVITRO IN VIVO AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL PUBLIC SCIENCE “real” SCIENCE

8. 1. Infinite benefit – 2. Unfettered research – 3. Accountability – peer-review, open debate. 4. Authoritativeness – politicians makes decisions by recourse to the facts; 1. Speculation (mesothelioma). 2. Scientific self-interest (toxicology). 5. Endless frontier - MYTHS OF PUBLIC SCIENCE (SAREWITZ Frontiers of Illusion ’97)

9. RULE 2 - STOP TEACHING SCIENCE 1. 1.Deficit theory of science literacy. Self- selected exclusion. Educational reform. 2. 2.Heuristics and biases (the 3-4 As). a. a.Affect. b. b.Anchoring or adjustment. c. c.Availability. 3. 3.Risk has a negative valence. Boomerang effects. Discussing risk increases its negative valence regardless of the subject.

10. PRODUCTS (2008) Applied nanoscience Computers Medicine & Pharmaceuticals Food additives & packaging Consumer Products – Sporting & Textiles Alternative Energy Personal Care Products Coatings Hybrid Materials

12. PRODUCT QUADRAD Low-hanging fruit is not Low-hanging fruit is not Imaginative Imaginative Transformative Transformative Inspirational Inspirational Nor visionary. Nor visionary. Profitable and quickly so. Profitable and quickly so. ETF FOOD HEALTH AND MEDICINE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY POTABLE WATER

13. Gartner Hype Cycle IT

14. RULE 3 – PRODUCTS/APPLICATIONS ARE NOT ALIKE 1. 1.Low-hanging to especially-tasty fruit (a product with coattails). 2. 2.Anchoring theory - the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions. 3. 3.Assist entrants and rehabilitate others. 0 + -

15. PERCEPTION Public perception Perception of public perception Event Amplification and attenuation Group leaders

16. RULE 4 – ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES 1. 1.Audiences process information through their own perceptual filters, i.e., audiences use religious beliefs, moral schema, etc. 2. 2.Perceptions are just that – the role of opinion – attitude – perception – behavior. Linking perception to behavior is not causal. 3. 3.Determine your audience (the 7-10 percent solution).

17. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, August 2008

18. RULE 5 - USE DIGITAL MEDIA 1. 1.Data indicates demographics favor net- newsers in the USA (Pew data). 2. 2.Design web resources as digital media NOT as text. 3. 3.Net resources amplify risk messages though they could also attenuate them. 4. 4.Staying on course with the evolving media: Social networking services (SNS), Twitter (micro-blogging), sliver TV, Second Life….

19. PERCEIVED RISKS OF NANO: AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS? Hart 2007

20. PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF NANO: AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS? Hart 2007

21. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FORUMS RESULTS OF DELIBERATION ON CERTAINTY??? (n = 300/6 locations) 10th Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, Malmo, Sweden, June 2008 and http://cns.asu.edu/files/ andhttp://cns.asu.edu/files/ NCTFSummaryReportFinalFormat08.pdf.

22. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FORUMS RESULT OF DELIBERATIONS ON CONCERN NBIC (Human Enhancement)

23. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FORUMS RESULT OF DELIBERATIONS INTERFERING WITH “NATURAL” HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

24. RULE 6 – IT’S NOT ABOUT AWARENESS 1.Public awareness tends to increase fear of risks and increase appreciation of benefits. Endurance issues – longitudinal studies. 2.This is a marketing issue and narratology is the game (link to affect heuristic); coherent stories. 3.Selecting the voice and the spokespersons.

25. LESSONS from Hart and NTF Public risk education. Risk has a negative valence (check new report). Public risk education. Risk has a negative valence (check new report). Awareness may affect perception but… Awareness may affect perception but… Does awareness “significantly” affect perceptions? Does awareness “significantly” affect perceptions? Does it have “real” or “long-term” effects? Does it have “real” or “long-term” effects? Is it worth the price? Is it worth the price?

26. NISE AUDIENCES

27. 1. 1. What w orries us about the public? a. a. Public rejects spending ? Legislators suspect public objects to spending? b. b. Public will boycott products? c. c. Public will protest industry? 2. 2. Who should worry us, then? a. a. Media reports. b. b. NGO/CAG reports. RULE 7. ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES.

28. MEDIA/NGOs “Consequences count”  African food aid – World Food program; 100,000 metric tons; recipient and transit countries; pre-milling; raises costs, hastens storage losses, and reduces the amount of food available for emergency relief.  Australian melanoma – (Sydney Morning Herald) NSW Cancer Council; since 1990; risks of sun exposure are well documented; 1600 die each year; lives are at risk (JNR FOE-Australia).

29. 1. Fear marketing/fear mongering. a. Direct relationship between fear and viewership/readership/membership… b. Rhetorical devices 1. Risk profile shifts. 2. Prolepsis and counterfactuals. 2. Kaplan’s complaint – using nanoscience as a scapegoat for bigger issues. RULE 8. ENGAGE THE MEDIA AND NGOs

30. 1. 1.It’s time to re-examine public engagement from in terms of productivity. 2. 2.It’s not a public issue, rather it is a media/NGO issue. It’s all about amplification. 3. 3.It’s a digital world; reading has changed; information flow has shifted. 4. 4.NGOs/CAGs – refutation is important; debunking (starvation in Africa and melanoma in Australia) – misinformation must be countered. KEY 1 – BUILD STRATEGIES (Guard dogs & guinea pigs)

31. KEY 2 - LET GO OF MISCONCEPTIONS RISK ANALYSIS IN HIGH UNCERTAINTY “We need new approaches to risk studies!” 1. 1.Stop worrying about popular culture. 2. 2.Science education is fine. Gladwell criticisms. 3. 3.Public engagement is expensive and mildly productive. Decide what your goals are. 4. 4.All scientists need to work together (natural and social). Nagging is counterproductive. Need a new era of constructive engagement.

32. 1. 1.Stop using intuition when designing a communication campaigns. Failures are expensive. (esp., trust and anchoring) AND r isk fatigue is real. 2. 2.Use data; NO place for pop- communication and PR. 3. 3.Don’t over-extend your expertise. Risk on a dime is not wise. Use communication professionals. KEY 3 – WHAT TO DO WHEN COMMUNICATING TO THE PUBLIC

33. ETF FOODMEDICINE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY POTABLE WATER

34. med(Ev 1 + Ev 2 + … Ev n ) med(P 1 + P 2 + … P n ) Risk ← ______________________________________ I T ALGORITHM & MODEL Risk communication algorithm. Risk communication algorithm. Risk communication model. Risk communication model. Ev = event, P = probability, I = information, and T = trust.

35. ILSI NA 2009 - © Berube 2009 January 21. 2009 – Tucson RISK COMMUNICATION AND PUBLICS This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 06-595, #0809470 Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement. THANKS dmberube@ncsu.edu