Skip to main content
Log in

Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements

Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many people believe that ordinary citizens should influence scientific and technological developments, but the American public is routinely uninformed about these issues. As a solution, some scholars advocate creating informed public opinions by encouraging citizens to deliberate about the issues. Although this idea is currently widely applauded in the science and technology literature, deliberative outcomes are infrequently measured and the practice of deliberation is routinely criticized in other disciplines. This research contributes to our understanding of the effectiveness of citizen deliberation as a method for increasing public engagement with science. I report data measuring results of deliberation in a national citizens’ technology forum (NCTF) about nanotechnologies for human enhancement. The NCTF was a month-long process involving six groups of 9–15 ordinary citizens who deliberated in different locations across the United States with the goal of reaching consensus about policy recommendations within their groups. I find that structured deliberation generated informed opinions, sometimes meaningful shifts in preferences, and increased trust and internal efficacy among the participants. Nevertheless, the NCTF has important shortcomings, and it is not obvious that consensus conferences should be preferred over other mechanisms for creating informed opinions. Future research is needed to corroborate the findings of this study and to systematically compare outcomes of structured citizen deliberation to other less resource intensive forms of engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. In addition to knowledge as a barrier to effective citizen input, there are other systematic barriers to citizens’ participation on these kinds of issues, but a discussion of these factors is beyond the scope of this research (see Fischer 2000).

  2. It is difficult to measure whether group decisions are “better” as a result of deliberation because this judgment requires an independent, objective standard to evaluate the deliberative decision against and we normally lack appropriate measures. Instead, group-level outcomes are labeled “better” because procedurally they incorporate the normative standard that including more voices in the decision making process confers greater legitimacy on binding decisions (Gutmann and Thompson 2004).

  3. A critical question that has been raised about the practice, not the concept, is whether the “top-down” structure of deliberative events means they are problematic because organizers determine who gets to deliberate and what they deliberate about (Powell and Kleinman 2008).

  4. One unresolved issue when evaluating deliberative effects is that the science and technology literature often conflates deliberation, properly defined, with almost any kind of group talking about an issue. Some studies dubiously take for granted that their study design, which encourages citizens to discuss the issues, is equivalent to generating deliberation (see Sprain and Gastil 2006).

  5. Although I do not present direct evidence that citizens deliberated in line with theoretical descriptions, there are at least two reasons to believe it happened. The first reason is that consensus conferences are intentionally designed to foster deliberation and not mere discussion. Their very structure is developed from theory to support the occurrence of deliberation. Secondly, participants scored near the maximum on a scale measuring a personal willingness to deliberate, both prior to and after deliberating.

  6. Organizers at each site location made the recruitment decisions, but all were in agreement that balancing socio-economic characteristics was a priority. Given the skewed demographics among the volunteers, random selection of panelists was impossible. Additional details are provided in Hamlett et al. (2008).

  7. For example, half the originally selected panelists were women, 65% were white, and the median age and income were, respectively, 39 years old and $50,000–$75,000. However, panelists were unevenly distributed political partisanship and political ideology (e.g., while 44% identified as Democrats, just 9% said they were Republicans and 36% reported being independent). During the recruitment of applicants (of which only 11 were Republicans), attempts were made to encourage non-Democratic applicants to take part in the NCTF, but these efforts were unsuccessful.

  8. The content experts included technical specialists, a philosopher, and a specialist in regulatory processes.

  9. Each site had different facilitators to manage the face-to-face deliberations. While the primary NCTF organizers gave instructions and advice for how to maintain consistent and professional facilitation, variation in the actual management of deliberation could have occurred and contributed to occasional differences in outcomes across site locations.

  10. The role of consensus is disputed in debates about definitions of deliberation. The pressure to reach consensus outcomes in deliberative settings is thought by some to exacerbate conformity effects and produce group delusion that “overwhelms the perspectives” of individual members (Mackie 2002).

  11. Importantly, it should be recognized that this research design is quasi-experimental. Participants were not randomly selected or assigned to conditions, and there are unmeasured influences arguably affecting behaviors beyond the treatment of deliberation, such as anticipation of the conference and informal conversation outside of the conference meetings with non-participants.

  12. Most of the people that did not take the post-test dropped out before the final meeting, but sometimes a panelist simply failed to answer the identical question at both points in time.

  13. Although I do not report the actual consensus reports of the six groups in this research, they provide solid evidence that thoughtful learning took place (Hamlett et al. 2008), and are accessible to general public at http://www4.ncsu.edu/~pwhmds/final_reports.html.

  14. Imagine, for example, that before deliberation ten out of fifteen people thought Hitler’s rise was a catastrophe, and that after deliberating all fifteen agreed it was a catastrophe. While the shift in opinion is consistent with the process of polarization cascades, it is unlikely that anyone would seriously object to the substantive shift in opinions.

  15. Many more people changed their opinions over time than these results indicate, but I am more concerned with the potential for “net attitude change” than with measuring response variation for its own sake (see Luskin et al. 2007). The reason for this emphasis is because democratic outcomes are not affected by equal percentages of the population changing their minds in opposite directions, no matter how large the magnitude of gross opinion change.

  16. As was almost always the case for within site analysis of opinions, the directional change of opinion on all five applications was identical, except once when panelists at Santa Barbara became more supportive of nanotechnologies to prevent prisoner escapes.

  17. One problem is that this comparison is based on just three individuals who expressed feelings at both points in time. Yet, when I examined the distribution of opinions among panelists with no feelings at first compared to their reports after deliberating, the same pattern occurs. The panelists who only took a position at the end expressed more worry than their fellow group members who had answered the question at the beginning. This pattern is replicated within sites with low response rates for feeling hopeful.

  18. As before, I did not find any significant differences within sites compared to the overall movement of opinions.

  19. Several scholars involved with project gave a briefing about the citizens’ reports to the U.S. Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, Washington, D.C., March, 2009.

References

  • Ackerman B, Fishkin JS (1994) Deliberation day. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabas J (2004) How deliberation affects policy opinions. Am Political Sci Rev 98:687–701

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber B (1984) Strong democracy. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell L (2008) Engaging the public in technology policy: a new role for science museums. Sci Commun 29:386–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown MB (2006) Survey article: citizen panels and the concept of representation. J Political Philos 14:203–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhalter S, Gastil J, Kelshaw T (2002) A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Commun Theory 12:398–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Burri RV (2009) Coping with uncertainty: assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Underst Sci 18:498–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig S, Niemi R, Silver G (1990) Political efficacy and trust: a report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behav 12:289–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delborne JA, Anderson AA, Kleinman DL, Colin M, Powell M (2009) Virtual deliberation?: prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences. Public Underst Sci XX:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado A, Kjolberg KL, Wickson F (2010) Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662510363054

  • Delli Carpini MX, Cook FL, Jacobs L (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annu Rev Political Sci 7:315–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek JS, List C (2003) Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation. British J Political Sci 33:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel EF (2008) Public engagement and dialogue: a research review. In: Bucchi M, Smart B (eds) Handbook of public communication on science and technology. Routledge, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel EF, Eastlick DL (2000) Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy. Sci Commun 21:323–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel EF, Jelsøe E, Breck T (2001) Publics at the technology table: the consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Underst Sci 10:83–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F (2000) Citizens, Eeperts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham, NC

  • Fishkin J (1991) Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin J (1997) The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J, Allum NC (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Sci 285:384–387

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gastil J, Levine P (eds) (2005) The deliberative democracy handbook: strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes M (2006) Organizing consent: the role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance. Eur J Political Res 45:285–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundhal J (1995) The Danish consensus conference model. In: Joss S, Durant J (eds) Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe. Science Museum, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston D (1999) Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: the impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Sci Technol Hum Values 24:451–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann A, Thompson D (2004) Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1996) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlett P (2002) Adapting the internet to citizen deliberations: lessons learned. In: Proceedings: social implications of information and communication technology, IEEE international symposium on technology and society. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Raleigh, NC, pp 213–218

  • Hamlett P, Cobb MD (2006) Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: structured deliberations and polarization cascades. Policy Stud J 34:629–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamlett P, Cobb MD, Guston D (2008) National Citizen’s Technology Forum: nanotechnologies and human enhancement. CNS-ASU Report # R08-0002. http://cns.asu.edu/files/report_NCTF-Summary-Report-final-format.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2010

  • Hays S (2010) A genealogical examination and grounded theory of the role of human enhancement technology in American political culture. Dissertation, Arizona State University

  • Hays S, Miller CA, Cobb MD (2011) Public attitudes towards nanotechnology-enabled cognitive enhancement in the United States. In: Hays S, Miller CA, Robert J, Bennett I (eds) Yearbook of nanotechnology in society: nanotechnology, the brain, and the future, vol 3. Springer, New York, NY

  • Hibbing J, Theiss-Morse E (2002) Stealth democracy. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding science. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan D, Braman D, Mandel GN (2008) Risk and culture: is synthetic biology different? Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper No. 09-2. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1347165. Accessed 18 Nov 2010

  • Kleinman DL, Delborne JA, Anderson AA (2009) Engaging citizens: the high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662509347137

  • Kuklinski JH, Quirk PJ, Jerit J, Rich RF (2001) Political environment and citizen competence. Am J Political Sci 45:410–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia A (1994) Shortcuts versus encyclopedias. Am Political Sci Rev 88:63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luskin R, Fishkin J, Jowell R (2002) Considered opinions: deliberating polling in Britain. Br J Political Sci 32:455–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luskin R, Fishkin J, Hahn K (2007) Deliberation and net attitude change. Paper presented at the ECPR general conference, Pisa, Italy, September 6–8, 2007

  • Mackie G (2002) Does democratic deliberation change minds? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA

  • Macnaghten PM, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27:268–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattei F, Niemi R (2005) Political efficacy. In: Bet S, Radcliffe B (eds) Polling America: an encyclopedia of public opinion. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelberg T (2002) The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence. In: Delli Carpini MX, Huddy L, Shapiro R (eds) Research in micropolitics: political decision making deliberation and participation. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrell M (2005) Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy. Political Behav 27:49–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators 2008. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson JW, Scammell MK, Altman RG, Webster TF, Ozonoff DM (2009) A new spin on research translation: the Boston consensus conference on human biomonitoring. Environ Health Perspect 117:495–499

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication?: promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pateman C (1970) Democracy; political participation; management; employee participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell M, Colin M (2009) Participatory paradoxes: facilitating citizen engagement in science and technology from the top-down? Bull Sci Technol Soc 29:325–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell M, Kleinman D (2008) Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Underst Sci 17:329–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnum R (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2003) Converging technologies for improving human performance: integrating from the nanoscale. J Nanopart Res 4:281–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Marsh R, Frewer LJ (2004) Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Sci Technol Hum Values 29:88–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryfe D (2002) The practice of deliberative democracy: a study of sixteen organizations. Political Commun 16:359–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sander L (1997) Against deliberation. Political Theory 25:347–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savulescu J, Bostrom N (eds) (2009) Human enhancement. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Lewenstein B (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Sihih TJ, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4:91–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schuefele DA (2006) Messages and heuristics: how audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In: Turney J (ed) Engaging science: thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. Wellcome Trust, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclove R (1995) Democracy and technology. Guilford Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprain L, Gastil J (2006) What does it mean to deliberate? An interpretative account of the norms and rules of deliberation expressed by jurors. Communication monograph accessed at http://depts.washington.edu/jurydem/writings.html

  • Stokes SC (1998) Pathologies of deliberation. In: Elster J (ed) Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2000) Deliberative trouble?: why groups go to extremes. Yale Law J 110:71–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2001) Designing democracy: what constitutions do. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2003) The law of group polarization. In: Fishkin J, Laslett P (eds) Debating deliberative democracy. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wickson F, Cobb MD, Hamlett P (2011) Review of deliberative processes: National Citizens Technology Forum—USA. In: Stol E, Scholl G (eds) Democratisation of science and technology development: deliberative processes in the development of nanotechnologies. Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore

  • Wilsdon J, Wynne B, Stilgoe J (2005) The public value of science. Or how to ensure that science really matters. Demos, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for research assistance provided by Deena Bayoumi, feedback provided by Patrick Hamlett, NCTF collaborators at six site locations, and participants at the workshop, “Publics and Emerging Technologies: Cultures, Contexts and Challenges,” Banff, Canada, October 30–31, 2009. Preparation of this article was supported by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (NSF grant # #0531194) and National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #0608791, “NIRT: Evaluating Oversight Models for Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems: Learning from Past Technologies in a Societal Context” (Principle Investigator: S.M. Wolf; Co-PIs: E. Kokkoli, J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, and G. Ramachandran). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael D. Cobb.

Appendix (Question wording and answer options)

Appendix (Question wording and answer options)

Internal efficacy (all answers recorded on a 5-pt scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”): “I consider myself well qualified to participate in politics”; “I feel that I have pretty good understanding of the important political issues facing our country”; “I feel that I could do as good a job in public office as most other people”; “I think that I am as well-informed about politics and government as most people”

External Efficacy (all answers recorded on a 5-pt scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”): “People like me don’t have any say what the government does”; “I don’t think the public officials care much what people like me think”

General Trust: “Do you think most people would: (1) try to take advantage of you if they got the chance, or (2) would they try to be fair?”; “Would you say that: (1) most of the time people try to be helpful, or (2) that they are mostly just looking out for themselves?”; “Generally speaking, would you say that (1) most people can be trusted or (2) that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?”

Knowledge Questions: “Nanotechnology refers to:”; “Nanoscience is:”; “Technologies that produce significant human enhancements like making human brains able to communicate directly with computers are:”; “A ‘transhumanist’ is an individual who:”; “Recent developments in Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Sciences, and Cognitive Sciences (NBIC) fall mostly into the area of:”; “Which of the following is expected to occur in the near future?”

Confidence: “How much confidence do you have in [“the federal government”/“Business”] protecting the public from significant risks associated with nanotechnology?” (A great deal of confidence; A fair amount of confidence; Just some confidence; Very little confidence; Not sure).

Risks Versus benefits: “What do you think about the risks and benefits of using nanotechnology for human enhancement, such as creating superior performance and longer, healthier lives?” (Risks > Benefits; Risks = Benefits; Risks < Benefits; No Opinion)

Worried: “Are you worried about nanotechnology used for human enhancement?” (Not at all worried; Yes, a little worried; Yes, very worried; No feelings)

Hopeful: “Are you hopeful about nanotechnology used for human enhancement?” (Not at all hopeful; Yes, a little hopeful; Yes, very hopeful; No feelings)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cobb, M.D. Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. J Nanopart Res 13, 1533–1548 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0227-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0227-0

Keywords

Navigation