The report explores the business case for co-creation both in the narrow and in the broader sense of the term, where, at its narrowest, the business case would be the monetary value it offers to commercial companies, and, in the broader sense, the business case would include non-monetary value (such as reputation, innovation potential, or access to markets) to innovation actors (i.e. including researchers, funding organisations, etc. as well) as adopters of co-creation processes. It reviews the GoNano experiences, considering feedback received from companies and other innovation actors on the GoNano co-creation activities, and reflects on the findings of a workshop with external stakeholders in October 2020 which aimed to explore the business case for co-creation in the context of three EU-projects funded under the NMBP-13-2018 call on risk governance in nanotechnology: NANORIGO, GOV4NANO and RISKGONE.

The report concludes that there may well be a business case for co-creation, both in the narrow and broader sense of the term. The GoNano experience in itself does not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a business case for co-creation in the narrow sense. To argue for co-creation as a purely commercial activity for companies, more straightforward and convincing examples are needed that demonstrate the commercial benefit of co-creation. Still, co-creation may offer opportunities to operationalise the commitment of companies towards their stakeholders. There are some indications from other initiatives like PRISMA and LIVING INNOVATION that companies may adopt co-creation as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility strategies. However, the successful adoption of co-creation does seem to be limited to those cases where ‘doing good’ and ‘doing well’ coincide.

The business case for co-creation seems to look stronger if it is interpreted broadly, as the potential to realise value in the broader sense for all innovation actors. For researchers, co-creation could help to define new inroads for research, gain access to future technology users and attract new sources of funding. For policy makers, co-creation could offer solutions to wicked problems that carry broader stakeholder support. The GoNano experiences provides some initial clues to the potential added value for producers, researchers and policy makers. However, to make a convincing business case for co-creation, many more compelling examples are needed of the added value of adopting iterative, product-focused, transdisciplinary collaborations as part of innovation processes in research, innovation and policy making. As the GoNano project draws to a close, the search for the business case for co-creation continues.

Downlaod the report here: GoNano D5.4 – The business case for co-creation. 

Enabling co-creation in nanotechnologies

GoNano and Harvestore first teamed up in October 2019 at a joint workshop to explore how co-creation could be used in the design and development of emerging technologies. Specifically, Harvestore aims to use nano-enabled micro-technology to develop a radical new family of all-solid-state micro-devices able to concurrently harvest and store energy from heat and light, providing uninterrupted power to low power devices.

Federico Baiutti of IREC, a Harvestore researcher, saw a lot of value in the Gonano co-creation process:

“It can help understand how to communicate effectively with stakeholders and help to get in touch with potential stakeholders that were not previously considered relevant…

… meetings between scientists and diverse publics should be encouraged so that scientists can understand what the needs of each stakeholder are.”

As co-creation is highly dependent upon bringing together diverse groups of stakeholders, the COVID-19 pandemic affected plans for many face-to-face events in 2020, but the projects have continued and are adapting to the circumstances. The GoNano final conference will now be a digital event, where individuals and organisations will be able to exchange ideas virtually and learn about the state-of-the-art in co-creation, responsiveness and practicing societal engagement in research and innovation. Researchers from the Harvestore project will be there to share their experiences of co-creation and to pick up tips for their engagement activities, including a large upcoming expo in the center of London and a topical workshop in Spring 2021.

For more information and the latest announcements about these upcoming events, please visit their website (http://www.harvestore.eu/) or follow Harvestore on Twitter @harvestoreEU and LinkedIn. 

This report aims to integrate the insights and lessons learned over the course of the project, reviewing findings from the knowledge base and methodology developed in the early stages of the project and the results of a series of engagement activities organised in the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Spain from October 2018 to November 2019. It considers how the various project activities have contributed to the specific objectives of the GoNano project as well as the overall aim to improve the responsiveness of research and innovation processes to public values and concerns.

The overall GoNano experience has elucidated opportunities and challenges of co-creation as a tool to enhance the responsiveness of research and innovation. The results suggest how focused, guided interactions between different stakeholders can in principle lead to novel suggestions on how to integrate broader considerations in research and innovation decisions. Several insights evolved from wild ideas into specific propositions towards the end of the co-creation process. That said, the gap between the appreciation of broader issues around research and innovation, and the actual integration of those issues in daily research practices and priorities remains significant: the challenge is to get from constructive dialogue to practical action. The GoNano experience suggests that co-creation processes need to identify the concrete interests and address the motivations of all participants, maintain continuity of thought, ‘translate’ needs and concerns from the social realm to practical options in the technological realm, and drill down to the level where the discussion topics and identified courses of action are specific enough to affect the decisions of the actors involved.

Read the full report here: GoNano D4.4 – Insights and lessons from the engagement activities

In summary

GoNano sought to design and implement a co-creation process that aligns nanotechnologies with societal needs and values. The co-creation process aimed to derive concrete suggestions from a deeper understanding of the needs and values of European citizens, and to explore the potential commercial value of integrating societal considerations in nanotechnology research and innovation. To realise these ambitious objectives, the project partners have produced a wealth of information on research and innovation policy, public engagement and co-creation in nanotechnologies.

The overall co-creation process spanned a wide range of activities across Europe. All in all, the workshops have mobilized 249 participants around co-creation in nanotechnologies. Moreover, 46 interviewees from 14 countries have provided their views on nanotechnologies and engagement in the initial stages of the project, 893 respondents from across Europe have commented through an online consultation on the product suggestions resulting from the workshops, and 198 persons responded to the evaluation questionnaires and interviews.

The overall GoNano experience has elucidated opportunities and challenges of co-creation as a tool to enhance the responsiveness of research and innovation. The findings of the GoNano co-creation process confirm that with some effort and careful preparation, it is possible to demonstrate to stakeholders that it does make sense to look at the broader dimensions of research. Participants valued the general opportunities for mutual learning and networking. However, getting from constructive dialogue to practical action remains a significant bottleneck: there is a gap between the appreciation of broader issues around research and innovation and the actual integration of those issues in daily research practices.

The GoNano experience suggests that co-creation processes need to identify the concrete interests and address the motivations of all participants, maintain continuity of thought, ‘translate’ needs and concerns from the social realm to practical options in the technological realm, and drill down to the level where the discussion topics and identified courses of action are specific enough to affect the decisions of the actors involved.

Aligning research and innovation to societal needs and values is not just a matter of deciding what sorts of future applications European citizens and stakeholders want and need (which is difficult enough, given widely divergent responses). It is also a matter of practically realising the desired change. Due to the relative autonomy of the research and innovation system, calls for responsiveness will need to identify the win-win opportunities where ‘doing good’ and ‘doing well’ coincide.

Read the full report here: GoNano D4.4 – Insights and lessons from the engagement activities

*The document may not be seen as an official deliverable of the GoNano project as it has not yet been approved by the European Commission

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

What is nanotechnology? And why does it matter?

Nanotechnology in a nutshell

Nano originates from the Greek word nanos, which means dwarf and refers to something very small. Nanotechnology is defined not by its subject matter, but by the scale at which it operates: the nanometer, or one billionth of a meter. Nanotechnology seeks to manipulate and control matter in a size range of 100 nanometer down to the size of atoms (approximately 0.2nm).

Not all nano-sized objects are man made. Many nanostructures occur naturally. They can be found in sea salt and volcanic ashes, among others. However, it is only in recent years that sophisticated tools have been developed to investigate and manipulate matter at the nanoscale. This has greatly enhanced our understanding of the nanoscale world. We now know that by rearranging or restructuring the atoms and molecules of a particle, the properties and behaviour (such as melting point, conductivity or chemical reactivity) of the particle change. For instance, gold particles at the nanoscale are not yellow as we know them, but can appear red or purple. Because of these changes in their optical properties, gold nanoparticles can be used for medical imaging. Nanomaterials may differ significantly from their larger scale relatives, opening doors for new technological opportunities. Read more about nanotechnology.

Why might you care about nanotechnology?

Nanotechnology is already a part of our lives. Nanomaterials are used to enhance the properties of consumer products like some toothpaste, sunscreen, food packaging, and smartphones. Proponents of nanotechnology claim that this is just a glimpse of the possible future benefits for consumers. But others are concerned that nanomaterials may harm human and environmental health. So, even though applications of nanotechnologies are developed to provide better products to consumers, there may be unforeseen consequences.

To what extent can we anticipate the future impacts of the use of nanomaterials? How should the potential benefits of nanotechnology be weighed against the possible unforeseen consequences? And who gets to decide? In recent years, a wide range of projects has been initiated to assess nanotechnology, measuring the effects of nanoparticles on human and environmental health and exploring possible future scenarios with citizens and stakeholders. Read more about the governance of nanotechnologies.

Join in: engagement opportunities

Nanotechnology, like all novel scientific advances, introduces new opportunities and uncertainties. This invites important questions about what products citizens may or may not want, and about the risks we are prepared to tolerate. These are questions which affect us all. As a stakeholder, you may also want to become involved in what happens next.

To help you get started, GoNano did some exploratory research and developed a public engagement database, listing organizations and projects that are currently out there looking for your feedback. These initiatives would like to find out about your concerns, needs and wishes on nanotechnology-related topics. Some directly invite you to join their discussion, others offer guidance on how to become involved in the nanodebate . Click here for the public engagement database.

GoNano also developed a ‘How to..’ guide for citizens on public participation. With this guide, we would like to share our lessons learned. Hopefully it will support citizens who would like to engage with nanotechnologies to express their own needs and concerns and ensure that their thoughts are taken into account in future developments. The guide offers a five-step approach which aims to help you define your interests, identify the right opportunity and become involved in nanotechnology research and development. It’s an invitation for citizens to express their own needs and concerns and help shape the future directions of nanotechnologies. Click here for the ‘How to..’ guide.

The GoNano approach

GoNano believes that research and innovation can benefit from being more open to societal needs and concerns. Over the course of three years (2017-2020), GoNano enabled collaborative development (co-creation) in three nanotechnology application areas: food, energy and health. We first consulted citizens about their wishes, needs and concerns regarding future nanotechnology applications. This was used as input for the first and second stakeholder workshops, which aimed to stimulate citizens, civil society organisations, industry, researchers and policy makers across Europe to co-create research aims and think about concrete (product) suggestions for future nanotechnologies. Read more about the GoNano approach and results. 

The background material presented in this report was developed for the first round of stakeholder workshops.These stakeholder workshops are part of a co-creation process where citizens and professional stakeholders (representatives from industry, policy, civil society and research) create suggestions for future nanotechnology products and research in the areas of ‘health’ (the Netherlands), ‘energy’ (Spain), and ‘food’ (Cech Republic). The goal of the co-creation process is to demonstrate how responsiveness to societal values, needs and concerns can be built into nanotechnology research and innovation processes resulting in products that are judged as socially desirable, sustainable, and acceptable.

Brochure content

Stakeholders that were invited to the stakeholder workshops received a personalized invitation in which the aims of GoNano and the purpose of engaging in the co-creation process was shortly explained. The information material provided also gave an overview of the overall co-creation process,and what was expected of their contributions during the workshop on page 2 and 3 of the information material. To make the GoNano co-creation process as transparent as possible, the infographic of the process was included, as well as the steps that will be taken after the stakeholder workshop. Furthermore, a short paragraph about the organizers of the workshops was included. This latter paragraph was adjusted to the pilot country.

Read the full GoNano report- D4.1 Background material for stakeholder workshops

The artificial pancreas, a closed loop system that continuously monitors health data and injects insulin when needed, was one of the technologies that was discussed. Stakeholders related to diabetes (including patients) regarded it as a promising technology that can take away a large burden of the disease, but the technology is still in its development. Interestingly, some of the participants posed concerns that the closed loop system might take away too much control of patients, and argued that users should have insights in their health data and get the possibility to take back the control of regulating their insulin levels when they prefer to. It was also discussed who else (e.g., caregiver, company that develops the devices) should have access to the health data. One of the members of the ‘we are not waiting’ community, who was also present at the workshop, emphasized that an open source platform where patients voluntarily share their data could help to improve the algorithms that regulate the glucose levels.

At another table, stakeholders related to sensor technologies, responsible research and innovation, policy making and industry, elaborated on how to involve industry in research on nanotechnology and health. Researchers who are at the beginning of their career and who work on novel healthcare technologies, for example better detection of cancer for personalized medicines, face challenges. They need funding to develop their technologies, but in order to attract funding they need to have private actors on board. However, industry and businesses are interested in applicable technologies, and less in technologies at an early stage of development. During the workshop various strategies for researchers were discussed, including: build a reputation as a researcher through media attention, strategically choose the application of the technology, involve users in an early stage to get know their needs and demands, and create long-term relationships with business partners through network activities.

During the first citizen consultation in the autumn 2018, one of the most curious ideas was the possibility of inventing a super food, that could be used for specific clients: athletes, astronauts or even people with allergies and that would be shaped / would have a taste up to anyone´s wish. Although Nanotechnology – e.g. titanium dioxide or the nanoparticles of homogenized fat – are already being used in real products, it seems that inventing food based mostly on Nanotechnology is unclear.

Is it realistic to consider Nanotechnology taking up on the whole product? According to experts, not really: such products are difficult to develop, and at the same time the question is if that is truly required. One of the participants based this claim on the experience of the health complications of the soldiers and astronauts already using such products. In addition, it seems that the public acceptance of such products is doubtful as well – the results of the GoNano Online consultation in the summer 2019 showed that such application is the most feared of all the applications of Nanotechnology. Experts therefore agreed that it could be more interesting and worth the effort to include such applications into packaging systems – to incl. additional substances or to be in general able to preserve the food, but rather externally.

This seems to be in line with what the other experts thought: it seems to be meaningful to concentrate the efforts to develop a packaging system that would be used for products that need to be kept fresh and safe at the same time – meat or cheese. Packages covering these products would use Nanotechnology layers that would proactively protect its content.

However, and quite curiously, participants agreed that it is important to consider the context of the wider waste management – to partially leave the strict requirements for self-dissolving packages, as this would only shift the problem to nanoscale. Since these packages would have to use artificial materials still and this could unexpectedly cause problems when recycling such materials or composting such materials. It was agreed that easier solution therefore exists on the other side: on the side of customer and his behaviour, and on the management of the whole life-cycle of a certain product. In other words, stakeholders agreed on the necessity and usefulness of involving many stakeholders from various fields, especially when it comes to such difficult questions, as only collective effort can complexly tackle such topics. And that is indeed what is desired.