Rob Goble George Perkins Marsh Institute Clark University, Worcester, MA

1. Uncertainty and risk communication concerning emerging technologies: describing uncertainties is not the only challenge Rob Goble George Perkins Marsh Institute Clark University, Worcester, MA NCSU Workshop on Communicating Health and Safety Risks on Emerging Technologies in the 21st Century North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC August 28-29, 2008

2. Disclaimer: I’m not expert on Risk Communication or Nanotechnology I have worked with a group of colleagues considering risk management implications of high uncertainty: Dale Hattis, Clark University Roger Kasperson, Clark University Vicki Bier, University of Wisconsin David Hassenzahl, UNLV Seth Tuler, WPI Heidi Larson, UNAIDS and Clark University Further disclaimer: they are not responsible for the specifics in this presentation

3. Strawman I: Traditional Risk Communication Risk Assessors Risk Managers Decisions Stakeholders

4. Strawman II: Communication within an “analytic-deliberative” process Risk Assessors Risk Managers Analytic and Deliberative Processes Decisions Stakeholders

5. The problem I’m concerned with is what gets communicated if • You don’t know whether some application of nanotechnology is a hazard • You might not even know what sort of hazard it might be when you don’t know whether it is or is not a hazard

6. That last sentence violates what many of you teach about good communication - to be clear and straightforward - but the problem (the risk to the risk communicator) is real • Most people, however, don’t care about the detailed nature of a hazard • They want to know what you are going to do about it - and to have some assurance that you know what you are doing

7. And this brings us to risk management…We have identified 3 modes of management response that are appropriate in situations of high uncertainty: • Adaptive management • Monitoring and adjusting responses accordingly • Examples: stewardship, rad waste(?) • Reframing (redefining) the problem • Examples: rad waste, toxic chemicals • Maintaining vigilance • Developing a broad information base • Seeking out unfamiliar possibilities • Preparing to address surprises • Examples, PBDE (flame retardants), acrylamide

8. Nanotechnology (or nanotechnologies) can be viewed as “insidious threats” A package of attributes that might characterize an agent as: • Persistent • Invisible • Unfamiliar • Unnatural • Not controllable • Having late emerging effects

9. Even when the science is relatively well understood (as with radioactive materials) “insidious threats” pose a serious challenge for risk communication. • Evoked anxieties make discussion difficult • And trust or lack of trust has critical impacts on any management activity

10. Our charge was to say something about “key variables” and something about “modes of communication” I contend that looking at management approaches offers a good opening for looking for relevant “key variables”. • Adaptive management invites attention to • Concerns about contamination (in environments, in humans) and about health • Capabilities for paying attention to monitoring findings • Capabilities for responding to new findings • Concerns about continuity and trust • Problem framing raises issues • How closely are different nanotechnology applications linked • How do they seem similar and different from other toxic substances

11. Looking to management modes to find variables - II • Maintaining vigilance • Expectations about the scale (present and future) of nanotechnology applications • Expectations about the knowledge base • Concerns about what can go wrong • Concerns about who is paying attention, who is responsible

12. Modes of communication • It should be possible to have an analytic-deliberative process concerning management responses to high uncertainty • There is some (mixed) experience in stewardship programs • It is important to keep track of expert perceptions and predictions