Enabling co-creation in nanotechnologies

The EU-funded GoNano project explored how co-creation might be used to enhance the responsiveness of nanotechnology research and innovation. Responsiveness is understood as the capacity and willingness of researchers and producers to integrate societal considerations in early stages of technology development. Co-creation can enhance responsiveness by enabling productive collaborations between researchers and societal stakeholders over longer timeframes, leading to tangible outcomes such as a new research avenue, proposal, product or prototype.

The GoNano co-creation process combined face-to-face citizen engagement, stakeholder workshops and online consultations in three pilot countries, each focusing on different thematic areas (health in the Netherlands, food in the Czech Republic, and energy in Spain).To share our experiences, GoNano developed three webinars that discusses how we developed our co-creation process, our lessons learned, and tips an tricks on how you can develop your own co-creation process.

Each webinar consists of about 45 minutes and provide insights into different aspects of co-creation. Eah webinar is devided into three sessions of 15 min each.

• The first webinar is about What is co-creation and why co-create in research and innovation?
  • Session 1.1: What is co-creation? 
  • Session 1.2: Why co-create in research and innovation?
  • Session 1.3: Who are the stakeholders for a co-creation project?

• The second webinar is about Co-creation in practice
  • Session 2.1: The GoNano Methodology for co-creation
  • Session 2.2: Planning your co-creation process: part 1
  • Session 2.3: Planning your co-creation process: part 2

• The third webinar is about Outcomes and results of co-creation​.
  • Session 3.1: Outcomes and results of co-creation
  • Session 3.2: Recommendations for policy to support responsible research and innovation practices

Enjoy watching and please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions!

In order to foster responsible research and innovation in the nano research and innovation (R&I) system, innovative processes are required in order to improve the responsiveness of research and innovation processes to public values and concerns, and to enhance the confidence of stakeholders that new technologies respond to societal needs and values. The early and continuous engagement of all stakeholders is key to sustainable, desirable and acceptable innovation in nanotechnologies, in which R&I is aligned with the values, needs and expectations of society.GoNano will co-create concrete product suggestions within the areas of food, health and energy, illustrate new opportunities for innovation and develop policy recommendations.

The following deliverable offers a consolidation of key findings from previous and ongoing EU and national engagement projects, relevant academic literature and material from interviews with RRI experts, co-creation practitioners, risk communication experts and societal engagement experts with respect to how to facilitate and pursue a co-creation process.  Projects differ according to their emphasis, e.g. on “public engagement”, “stakeholder engagement”, “co-creation” or “mutual learning”. While we acknowledge the differences that exist in these notions here, we do not engage with those differences as such.

Read the full report here: GoNano D1.1- Building on the state-of-the-art: Ex-post evaluation on mutual learning

In summary

In order to foster responsible research and innovation in the nano research and innovation (R&I) system, innovative processes are required in order to improve the responsiveness of research and innovation processes to public values and concerns, and to enhance the confidence of stakeholders that new technologies respond to societal needs and values. The early and continuous engagement of all stakeholders is key to sustainable, desirable and acceptable innovation in nanotechnologies, in which R&I is aligned with the values, needs and expectations of society.

GoNano will co-create concrete product suggestions within the areas of food, health and energy, illustrate new opportunities for innovation and develop policy recommendations. The GoNano co-creation process aims for enhanced societal engagement in the governance of the innovation of nanotechnologies. In order to foster such an innovative process, GoNano will showcase an early state-of-the-art continuous citizen and stakeholder engagement process, building on the insights of previous EU and national projectsin the field of public engagement and on an ex-post evaluation of the mutual learning process between stakeholders in previous relevant nanotechnology projects and on societal debates on emerging technologies.

Deliverable 1.1 offers a consolidation of key findings from previous and ongoing EU and national engagement projects, relevant academic literature and material from interviews with RRI experts, co-creation practitioners, risk communication experts and societal engagement experts with respect to how to facilitate and pursue a co-creation process. We begin by presenting the rationale for co-creation, both with respect to the general objective of making research and innovation more responsive to societal needs and expectations, and with an emphasis on the GoNano approach to co-creation. In carrying out a mapping and analysis of a variety of projects and initiatives, we encountered the following types of recommendations:

1. 1. How to organise co-creation exercises: substantive and procedural requirements
   2. Sociological/philosophical observations regarding how interactions worked (or should have worked

The following report is structured along these recommendations; where possible, good practice examples of how other projects have addressed certain issues were included. Studies of public perception of nanotechnologies also offer some important insights for GoNano with respect to understanding attitudes to nanotechnologies and specific needs for information in co-creation exercises.The report also outlines highlights of some relevant studies and specific methodologies –described in the project reports –that are of interest for GoNano. Next key lessons for GoNano from a state-of-the-art study of the public engagement literature are extracted. And finally, an overview of national nanotechnology dialogue initiatives carried out in consortium partners’ countries and drawout the implications of these exercises for our own project is offered.

Read the full report here: GoNano D1.1- Building on the state-of-the-art: Ex-post evaluation on mutual learning

Part of the GoNano objectives are to create an engagement process which is cognisant of gender, diversity, culture and communication traditions across Europe. By being aware of what aspects of gender, culture, diversity and communication methods affect public discourse and public opinion, we can engage the public in a more immediate and significant way, and thereby develop a better and more effective communication and consultation methodology. This report is divided into two parts, where the first part consists of a literature review where these issues of gender, culture and communication is investigated. The second part is an analysis of societal debates, where online tools are used for harvesting, mapping and analysing social data on social media and websites on national debates in five European countries –the Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands and Spain

Read the full report here: D1.2- Understanding the role of culture, gender and communication traditions and their implications for enagagement methodologies communication and dissemination

In summary

Part of the GoNano objectives are to create an engagement process which is cognisant of gender, diversity, culture and communication traditions across Europe. This engagement process will inform future nanotechnology development, by ways of public discourse and methodology development, as well as co-creation. In order to adequately align nanotechnology Research and Innovation with societal needs, it is important to look at societal issues such as gender, culture, and diversity.

These areas of focus present us with an opportunity to get a deeper insight into what motivates opinions, thoughts, needs, values and concerns — are these the same, or are there differences between or within various groups? Does gender have any impact on how values, needs and concerns around nanotechnology are shaped; does demographic diversity influence such concerns? What information and knowledge can we glean from looking into divergences of opinions and differences in discourse? What can we gain from increased awareness and focus on these issues?

This report is divided into two parts, where the first part consists of a literature review where these issues of gender, culture and communication is investigated. The second part is an analysis of societal debates, where online tools are used for harvesting, mapping and analysing social data on social media and websites on national debates in five European countries –the Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Denmark, Netherlands and Spain.

Conclusion

The findings from the data-mapping exercise showed that organisations have a very important role to play in disseminating information and building trust with the general public on topics like nanotechnology, and if the aim is to start a dialogue, dissemination needs to be both one-way and two-way in order to have an impact beyond those who already have an interest in the issue at hand. Public opinion can be influenced and change from a generally positive attitude towards nanotechnology to a hostile and negative perception –it is only by having a solid, facts-based communication channel that is effective in its reach that this can be avoided. In addition to this, the literature review informed us of how the lay public form opinions, how they are influenced, how they assess risk, and how gender and diversity play out in this area.

Read the full report here: D1.2- Understanding the role of culture, gender and communication traditions and their implications for enagagement methodologies communication and dissemination

During the first part of the GoNano project about fifty stakeholders with different roles in the R&I value chain have been interviewed in order to discuss the main technological developments in food, health and energy sectors. Representatives of R&I networks, public and private research, industry, policy makers, and end-users from several different countries in Europe have been involved. The respondens were asked about the main technological developments in the three sectors, in order to highlight the potential applications with significant impact on society and the issues that could be relevant to discuss in public debates.

Interview findings include examples of applications using nanotechnologies in the sectors of food, health and energy, with particular focus on short to medium term product solutions. Both common, and sector specific issues have been identified and have been turned into future applicaitons and product scenarios.  Most of them are expected to have a significant social impact, and are also aligned with acknowledged R&I priorities at policy and industrial level. These include applications of nanotechnologies for smart packaging, nano‐filtering, novel foods and plant protection products (food and agri‐food sectors), and regenerative medicine, diagnostic and assistive medical devices, targeted and personalized medical treatments (healthcare), and energy generation and storage, energy efficiency and application of the internet of things (energy).

In the report, the research priorities, product scenarios, and the needs and concerns emerged from the interviews are analyzed. Differences and similarities between the three sectors have been discussed and some cross-sectorial or general issues have been highlighted. Also, several insights to design future dialogue initiatives on nanotechnologies have been collected, regarding the methodology, the stakeholders to be engaged, the issues to debate and the goals to be pursued through societal engagement.

Read the full report here  D1.3- Stakeholders engagement in nanotechnologies: areas and issues for a dialogue

Read the full report here D-2.1 Method and manuals for pilot studies

The GoNano project is built on the assumption that several types of knowledge are needed to define sustainability, acceptability, and desirability of nanotechnologies. To test this hypothesis, GoNano explores opportunities and barriers for co-creation in different thematic areas (Health, Food and Energy), combining face-to-face citizen engagement, stakeholder workshops and online consultations.

This report is about the first stakeholder workshop organised in the pilot countries in February and March 2019. The aim the workshops was to explore opportunities and barriers for co-creation in the three thematic areas As can be read in the full report, the first stakeholder workshop intergrated the lessons learned in the first exploratory stages of the project and the citizen workshops. Workshop findings point to new opportunities for enabling co-creation between different stakeholders, but also suggest new barriers.

Read the full GoNano report- D4.2 – Working paper on the designs and outcomes of the first stakeholder workshops.

Summary of the report

Five stakeholder workshops were held in the three designated GoNano pilot countries in February and March 2019. The University of Twente (UT) organised three workshops in the thematic area of nanotechnologies and health in the Netherlands: the first workshop on 12 February focused on diabetes, the second workshop on 5 March looked at sensors, and the third workshop on 7 March discussed health policy. The Technology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences (TC CAS) organised a fourth workshop on nanotechnologies and food in Prague on 28 February. A fifth workshop on nanotechnologies and energy was held in Barcelona by the European Office of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), also on 7 March.

Workshop findings

Collectively, the workshops have mobilized almost one hundred stakeholders around co-creation in nanotechnologies. The events provided productive spaces for engagement and mutual learning between a wide range of stakeholders: researchers, producers, policy makers, civil society and citizens. The workshop discussions gave rise to interesting suggestions: in the diabetes workshop at UT, citizens’ concerns about the ownership of medical data sparked a discussion about data management, highlighting considerations that might be of use to the product developer in further developing a data management plan.

In the sensor workshop, interactions with envisaged future users of a biomedical sensor raised the researcher’s awareness of the performance criteria that will determine adoption of the sensor. These examples suggest that ‘exposure’ to use considerations further down the line can attune research design to future use contexts.

Reflection on the findings

Looking at the learning objectives for the stakeholder workshops, the results suggest that the workshops succeeded in raising awareness with stakeholders that the early consideration of the needs and values of citizens and societal stakeholders can add value to innovation in nanotechnologies. But the workshop findings also point to barriers for co-creation. It proved difficult to connect the input from the citizens to the research agendas and concerns of the professional stakeholders. The findings suggest that there is a trade-off between inclusiveness and specificity: the decision to treat all stakeholder perspectives on an equal footing for reasons of inclusiveness may come at the cost of a clear action perspective. Conversely, the choice of one particular action perspective to enable specificity is – by definition – partial and exclusive.

These observations reconfirm the complexity of the GoNano co-creation process as a whole: it is far from self-evident how broader societal considerations can be applied meaningfully to research and innovation practice. It requires insight in the individual, day-to-day decisions being taken in nanotechnology research and innovation (and respect for the limited room for manoeuvre at that level); a deep understanding of public perceptions of, and attitudes towards, nanotechnologies; a process that allows participants to build a relationship and develop a shared language in which their contribution to the problems at hand can be meaningfully expressed; and above all, the capacity to ‘translate’ needs and concerns from the social realm to practical options in the technological realm in real time.

This is a tall order indeed, but it is exactly what needs to happen to realise the policy prescriptions underlying the notion of Responsible Research and Innovation and the Science in Society-movement in general: “to encourage actors in their own disciplines and fields to participate in developing Science in Society perspectives from the very beginning of the conception of their activities.”

Over the last decades, many efforts have been put in place to reduce the distance between science and society, including the European-wide approach in Horizon 2020 called Responsible Research and Innovation. RRI seeks to bring issues related to research and innovation into the open, to anticipate their consequences, and to involve society in discussing how science and technology can help create the kind of world and society we want for generations to come. Next, to the GoNano project, the PRISMA project is working in parallel to test the best approaches to introduce RRI in the R&I processes inside industry.

The PRISMA project consists out of 8 pilot projects developed with companies in order to help them to better integrate RRI in their innovation process and business practices. These pilots will provide case studies and good practices on RRI.  On the basis of the pilots, the PRISMA consortium will develop a roadmap in order to help other companies to integrate RRI in their businesses. The pilots span several technological fields, namely synthetic biology, nanotechnology, self-driving vehicles, and the internet of things. Last October they organized a two-days co-creative dialogue event, “A roadmap to foster social value in business, research and innovation strategies”, in Milan.

The event confirmed the importance of stakeholder engagement and co-creation for industry, in particular when developing transformative technologies, that can have very short innovation cycles. Interacting with all the stakeholders, from the very early stages of the R&I process, allows to understand and evaluate the possible impacts of the technological innovation on all the actors along the value chain. Different insights from the event for stakeholders’ engagement have been highlighted, in particular:

• an early engagement with suppliers, users and end-users (professional users or consumers), to anticipate positive and negative impacts and improve product design, aligning the product development with user’s requirements and needs;
• the engagement with regulators, policy makers, local communities, investors and other actors along the value chain, to inform the strategy for deploying and marketing innovative products;
• the interaction with the different actors along the R&I value chain becomes crucial, to define good practices that cover the aspects of innovation that are not yet addressed by regulations;

An example of the latter is the development of autonomous vehicles which has emerged in one of the PRISMA pilots. Existing regulation does not allow for testing these systems in public places (for safety and security reasons). Interaction with authorities and local communities is essential to define a specific situation where these technologies could be developed, in line with the needs and rules of the community. A dialogue between stakeholders is essential to define trade-offs, in order to allow the development of new technologies in line with social values and norms. This is also a limitation for the implementation of individual and personalized medical devices.

Short videos with testimonials on RRI from the companies involved in the PRISMA pilots will soon be available on the project website. The PRISMA roadmap is being developed and will be ready before Summer 2019.  – http://www.rri-prisma.eu/

The guidelines in this document will support policy makers in their decision-making process and provide suggestions for action.

“Policy-makers can help identify the segments of the innovation process that can be ‘opened’. These segments are those that should receive dedicated support, such as capacity building and innovation services delivered by experts.”

Science2Society is an EU-funded project that aims to boost innovation efficiency across Europe. To improve the output of innovative processes, Science2Society analyses business creation, the use of knowledge in creating solutions, products and applications generating value from academic and scientific research. Science2Society brings together practitioners and system experts, including universities, industries and research & technology organisations. Through this interaction, the project makes available a wealth of experiences and practices which can help improve the performance of innovation processes, introducing the principles of open innovation.

PolicyBrief Science2All