The public value of private science?

The public value of private science? • Why upstream engagement? • The nanodialogues • Method + results • Beyond safety, Beyond benefit • How can we take this forward? • Joining up science and values

Three phases in thinking about science and societyPhase 1: Public understanding of science(PUS) ‘It is clearly a part of each scientist’s professional responsibility to promote the public understanding of science’ Sir Walter Bodmer, Royal Society (1985)

Phase 2: ‘A new mood for dialogue’ ‘There is a new humility on the part of science in the face of public attitudes, and a new assertiveness on the part of the public.’ House of Lords ‘Science and Society’ (2000)

Phase 3: Paddling upstream ‘We have learnt that it is necessary with major technologies to ensure that the debate takes place “upstream”, as new areas emerge in the scientific and technological development process.’ Lord Sainsbury, Science Minister (July 2004)

Unilever on Science and Technology The goal is to help create products that enable people to live their lives the way they want – however their tastes, lifestyles and aspirations vary. As we spend over €1bn a year on R&D, our scientists and engineers have the resources –as well as the knowledge and imagination – to equip them for the task. “The common thread running through all our R&D activities is this direct connection between science and consumer need.” (Unilever Website - Where science brings vitality to life)

Nanotechnology: the definition • Materials that are composed of only a few hundreds of atoms to give structures possessing a size in the nanometre range  CHEMISTRY • Materials that possess one characteristic dimension in the nanometre length range  COLLOID SCIENCE, POLYMER CHEMISTRY • Materials formed as permanent structures, 100nm or smaller, that because of their size possess unexpected properties differing from bulk materials  NANOTECHNOLOGY

What is a nanometre (nm)?

What is a nanometre (nm)? If the distance between the sun and the earth were 1 metre then a football field would be 1 nanometre long The diameter of a human hair is around 10 thousand nanometres 3 atoms of a solid material is approximately 1 nanometre long There are five grams of nanoparticles in this jar, enough for every person on Earth to have three million each

Nanotechnology: the next big thing “By anyone's measure, nanotechnology is the next big thing. In fact, according to government R&D planners, nanotechnology is nothing short of the next Industrial Revolution.” Chemical & Engineering News, 2002 This image of 112 carbon monoxide molecules on a copper surface was made at an IBM Research Center using a scanning tunneling microscope. Each letter is 4 nm high by 3 nm wide. About 250 million nanoletters of this size could be written on a cross section of a human hair; this corresponds to 300 300-page books. President Clinton used the image to unveil the US National Nanotechnology Initiative.

Nanotechnology: another industrial revolution “The world market for nanotechnology will exceed US$1 trillion by 2012” US National Science Foundation “...(when) such (nano)technologies arrive, the results will be awesome: they will be equivalent to James Watt’s invention of the condenser, a development that kick-started the industrial revolution” Sir Harry Kroto, Nobel Laureate “Transnational companies often carry out their own nanotech-related R&D. This is because they understand that nanotech is likely to disrupt their current products and processes” UK Department of Trade and Industry “Nanotechnology has become a big buzzword – so much so that the stockbrokers Merrill Lynch has created an index to track investment in the newly burgeoning industry” BBC News

The ‘logos’ of nanotechnology • Nanotechnology as inherently ‘uncanny’ • Size, surprising properties, self-organisation • Nanotechnology as ‘nature technologized’ • Biological cells seen as nano-factories with nano-machinery inside them • Nature is a nano-engineer; if we want to know what nanotechnology can achieve all we need to do is look at nature’s nanotechnology • Nanotechnology as ‘technology naturalized’ • Nano-sensors embedded into the fabric of everyday life (clothes, bodies etc.) so as to act as extension of our senses

Research aims • To understand the upstream visions held by Unilever R & D staff, with a view to informing scenarios for public engagement. • To provide upstream social intelligence on likely public responses to the development of techniques and products using nanotechnologies. • To develop thinking about the practice of public engagement in a corporate R and D context. • To inform Unilever’s corporate strategy on nanotechnology issues.

Wider questions • What are the building blocks of public trust in science-based companies and their products? • What are the likely fault-lines of public concern to novel nanotechnologies? • To what extent are public concerns over safety linked to upstream questions of ownership, control and trust?

The public groups • Four focus groups, each 3 hours • Group 1- “Involved Mothers” 30-40 yrs, BC1, Mothers of at 1+ pre teen child, Working • Group 2 – “Metrosexuals”, Male/Female, 25-30 yrs, C1 • Group 3 – “Aspirational Women” 40-55 yrs, C1/2, Mothers of teenage/post teenage children • Group 4 – “Organic Men” 45-60 yrs, BC1, Empty nesters, Working full time

The design • Start with products • Role of technology • Articulation of benefits and concerns • Introduction of Nanotechnology • What it is? • How it is reported? • Scenarios of nanotechnology in products • Nano goes new places • Nano lets things look different, feel different, • Nano can enhance things • Visions of nanotechnology – groups and collages • What are the messages?

Findings – products and new S&T • Enthusiasm and scepticism to novel products • Contributed to mundane, everyday life (and to social identities for some) • Scepticism over claims of novelty and radical benefit • Ambivalence to science in product formulations • Difficulty in imagining products as involving ‘science’ (Cosmetics partly an exception) • Perceived trumping of marketing/ corporate considerations over ‘real’ science • ‘As if’ trust over safety of products although, when pressed, scepticism over corporate and regulatory oversight processes

Public responses to nanotechnology Hard to develop nano-imagination • Cultural capital a prerequisite Marked scepticism and negativity • Is it safe? • Is it needed? • Who will benefit? • Is it messing with nature? • What vision of the future is it part of?

Scepticism about safety “I would assume that before it came to market, whatever product, it would have been properly tested. Surely something like thalidomide was thoroughly tested and look what it did. You know, it was going to be revolutionary safe on everything and look what it did. It was claimed to be revolutionary, safe and everything, and look what it did. Valid point It has to be tested for a few generations just to see the impact, thirty years or so. So can we trust them? Obviously not.” (Group 4) “How can something like that slip onto the market without anyone knowing about it?” (Group 1) Int What do they think the role is of corporate science? “It’s marketing science… 99% of it is rubbish” (Group 4)

Beyond ‘safety’ – scepticism about novel benefits • Relationship with products is more complicated than just buying benefits… “I don’t think anybody’s got like a better product than anybody else,” (Group 2) “Every dieting craze that comes out, or the manufacturers jump on and say, “This is this and that.” … Suddenly that’s what you’ve got to drink.” (Group 4) “There might be more science, but it’s not proven, is it?... Science is telling us these things, but nothing’s proved really.” (Group 1)

Beyond ‘benefit’ “Well, the only people who will benefit, will be people like L’Oreal and Dove and all that because they are the ones who are going to take the money...” (Group 3) “I think what concerns me is the drive of all of this. You’re going to create better tasting dessert. There’s nothing better than apples, right? Apples are great. They grow. They’re natural. I mean, all the stuff that we need is already here. What is the point of this? Why are we being driven always away from just the natural free things that grow, you breathe, to things that you have to pay for?... It’s all about just markets.” (Group 4) “People are stuck in a certain consumer hamster wheel where we always have to buy the latest, the latest, the latest and I don’t think that is a positive thing because 99% of the things we use we don’t need…So this is vested interest that keeps the people on the hamster wheel of innovation. So you always have got the next, the next, the next. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or bad either.” (Group 4)

What do we “need”? “But you don’t need to do that. You can feed the world as it is. It’s not about that there’s not enough food, it’s about the politics of food. And it’s about economies of scale. It’s about how markets operate. I mean, we can have enough food for everyone if you don’t have America polluting the world like it is and using up all the world’s resources and they share them out, there’s enough for everyone.” (Group 4) “Why does food need engineering. Yeah. What is the benefit of that.” (Group 3) “We can live without any of that” (Group 1) (– metaphorically and literally – cf. Medical applications)

Messing with nature “You know that it is ‘messing with nature’ really.” (Group 1) “Because you know if by enhancing the taste and what have you, it’s like you don’t know what’s going to be real and what’s not going to be real. You’re kind of kidding yourself because your taste buds are there or however they taste is natural and then you kind of give them something that’s just not really… I think that’s when you come into ethics though in a way because you know everything in the planet is growing for a reason… [and] for us to sort of- and it’s like do we take all that away and who gives anyone the right to completely you know do that.” (Group 2) “OK, but what’s the long-term consequence of this. Nobody will know what the long-term consequence is… I mean that’s all messing around with… They’re messing around with the building blocks of matter.” (Group 3)

How does this make you feel? “Int: Right… this makes you feel what? Very uncomfortable. Int: This makes you feel what? Combative. Skeptical. I’m not sure of what I feel. I’m not sure what Nano Technology is. Int: Sure. Is it making things better or is it gonna make things worse? I’m very confused. The rules are very suspicious about anything… I think that is quite scary, myself. ” (Group 3)

Nanotechnology as double-sided “Nanotechnology is “presented as if there isn’t a down side” (Group 1) “There’s got to be some downside to it somewhere” (Group 1) “There are always benefits, there’s always downsides” (Group 4) Int:“You’re not saying it’s good or bad. You’re saying you know that it could possibly be this…” “Like a balance… because everything so far has been about like a balance. You mean will we look for the nano for more.” “Until we see an option that you can’t really give a correct opinion on it because you don’t know how effective it is.” “Because the nano world might not bring perfection to certain people as well. So they might always keep looking for more.” (Group 2)

Disaggregating responses “I think in medicine it’s great. But I think it’s a bit wary when you come down to food and what have you, trying to enhance that.” (Group 2) Int: “Anyway food, you’re saying that you have to be most cautious about, then what?” “Well I think foods you can’t see whereas cosmetics is external so you can see – anything where you can’t physically monitor it as you see externally.” Int: “So things you can monitor externally. And is toothpaste in the middle? “ “Possibly.” “You put it in your mouth.” (Group 2) My personal view is would I touch anything that has nano in it, in food? No. I would not ingest. Would I with cosmetics with nano? Possibly, but I would still need to know more. On he medical side, I really want to look into it in detail. (Group 3)

Visioning the nano-world “It’s in the place of being, creating and being God. That’s what the attraction is. You can get close. You get that to the molecular level. You can take it and put it back together again, in the way you want it to be. Take the thing that’s going to become a boy out and put it back together again, you’ll going to have a little girl instead. That’s the attraction. That’s certainly playing God.” (Group 4) “You know, nano is invisible. You can use it like a virus. So there’s that aspect.” (Group 3) “I think it’s like a huge leap that hasn’t- you know what I mean? You know they’re chasing things, it’s frightening. And I think that’s quite frightening about it. All of a sudden and it’s like how much research is going to go in or is it going to go on the market too quick and then there’ll be because I think personally we always seem to be trying to correct technology… like GM foods, what have you. That was technology but now we’re trying to stop and it always seems like we seem to be backtracking on things.” (Group 2) “Where do you get your pleasure from if everything is so wonderful” (Group 1) “I think people think everybody will end up looking the same. All the blond hair and blue eyes and stuff like that.” (Group 2)

Opportunities for new forms of engagement with citizen-consumers “Well, I object to the fact that we’re called consumers. We’re not humans anymore. We’re consumers… We believe there is no collective voice that’s going to represent the public on this subject. … So at the end, it’s left to either business or government to try to draw a public view about the subject.” (Group 4)

Discussion: Joining up Science and Values (via Vitality?) • To what extent is Unilever R&D straight-jacketed by its adherence to the language of ‘benefits’ and ‘risks’ • How does Unilever science deal with issues beyond consumer benefit? • How should Unilever manage public sensitivities beyond technological risk? • Should we revisit how Unilever organises its R&D • How can cultures of Unilever science incorporate values • Public values • Unilever values • How should Unilever talk about science and its relationship to marketing? • Can ‘Vitality’ provide a mechanism to guide Unilever’s approach to novel S&T including nanotechnologies? • How should this inform Unilever’s strategic approach to nanotechnology?

The public value of private science?