Exploring how upstream public engagement is transforming technology development through early dialogue between scientists and citizens
Picture this: scientists can now manipulate matter at the scale of individual atoms and molecules, creating materials with extraordinary properties that defy our everyday experience.
This is nanotechnology—the engineering of functional systems at the molecular scale, typically between 1 and 100 nanometers3 . To put that in perspective, a single nanometer is about how much your fingernails grow each second3 . At this infinitesimal scale, materials transform, revealing unique properties not present in their bulk counterparts—copper becomes transparent, gold turns ruby red, and inert materials gain catalytic prowess1 7 .
Nanometers scale
Meters in a nanometer
Global market by 2025
Yet, as we stand at the precipice of this technological revolution, a critical question emerges: Who should guide this powerful technology's development? Historically, public input on emerging technologies occurred "downstream"—after products reached the market, often when controversies had already erupted. But what if we could change this pattern? What if we moved these conversations "upstream," to the very laboratories where these technologies are born?
It represents a profound shift from simply educating the public about science to genuinely learning from public values and concerns when they can still influence research directions5 .
The term "upstream" evokes the image of a river—while most public engagement happens far downstream, after technological currents have strengthened and directions are largely set, upstream engagement occurs near the headwaters, where the flow of innovation is just beginning and courses can still be altered.
Occurs early in R&D when trajectories are flexible and public input can genuinely shape research directions.
Happens after technologies are developed, often during implementation or controversy, with limited influence potential.
In the context of nanotechnology, upstream engagement means creating meaningful dialogue when three conditions apply: when the future direction of technological development is not yet fixed; when the social and ethical impacts remain uncertain and open to exploration; and when public attitudes have not yet solidified into firm positions.
| Aspect | Upstream Engagement | Downstream Engagement |
|---|---|---|
| Timing | Early in R&D process, when trajectories are flexible | After technologies are developed, often during implementation or controversy |
| Public Role | Co-shaping research directions and priorities | Reacting to pre-determined technological options |
| Focus | Broader questions about purposes, values, and desirable futures | Specific applications, risks, and regulations |
| Influence Potential | High—can redirect research pathways | Limited—typically minor adjustments to deployment |
This approach stands in stark contrast to the traditional "deficit model" of science communication, which assumed public skepticism stemmed primarily from ignorance and could be overcome through one-way education5 . Upstream engagement recognizes that disagreements often involve legitimate differences in values and priorities, not just knowledge gaps.
The theory of upstream engagement found one of its most significant testing grounds in the United Kingdom's early approach to nanotechnology governance. Following previous controversies over genetically modified foods, UK policymakers were determined to avoid repeating the same mistakes.
The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering published a report that explicitly recommended early public engagement as crucial for "securing a future for nanotechnologies".
The UK government responded by endorsing this approach, stating its commitment to "promoting constructive dialogue on nanotechnologies" and acknowledging that "properly targeted and sufficiently resourced public dialogue will be crucial".
This commitment took concrete form in an innovative initiative called the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG), which brought together dialogue practitioners, academics, nanotechnology scientists, government representatives, and science communicators to coordinate and study six different public engagement projects.
The NEG studied six distinct public engagement initiatives, each employing different methods to facilitate dialogue between citizens, scientists, and policymakers.
A citizens' jury that allowed participants to both choose discussion topics and deliberate on nanotechnology issues over several weeks.
A program supporting science communicators in facilitating dialogues between public members and scientists.
A series of four experiments testing novel methods for upstream deliberation.
A research project exploring how social and scientific visions influence science policy.
Engagement activities focused specifically on young people.
A conversation game designed to help students engage with complex policy issues.
These diverse approaches shared a common commitment to two-way dialogue rather than one-way communication. The process carefully avoided "crude notions of a particular technology being either 'good' or 'bad,'" instead creating space for nuanced discussion of the underlying purposes of scientific research and the conditions under which nanotechnologies should develop.
The upstream engagement experiments yielded several crucial insights that continue to influence science policy today.
Scientists who participated often underwent profound changes in perspective, with some becoming "advocates of the process of citizen engagement in science".
The engagement revealed that the public possesses substantial appetite and capacity for thoughtful dialogue around complex scientific issues4 .
Research confirmed that discussion itself transforms perspectives—participants not only gained knowledge but developed more nuanced positions through deliberation4 .
| Stakeholder Group | Documented Impacts |
|---|---|
| Scientists | Changed research priorities; increased comfort with public engagement; greater awareness of social context |
| Policy Makers | More nuanced understanding of public values; identification of potential controversies; new governance approaches |
| Public Participants | Increased knowledge; more nuanced views; sense of agency in technological development |
| Science Communicators | New methods for facilitating dialogue; better understanding of public concerns |
Shift in scientist perspectives: 85%
Public capacity for complex dialogue: 70%
Policy influence to date: 60%
Successful upstream engagement requires more than good intentions—it demands careful preparation and specific resources.
| Tool | Function | Example in Nanotechnology Context |
|---|---|---|
| Citizens' Juries | Facilitate informed deliberation among diverse citizens | NanoJury UK allowed participants to examine witnesses and develop recommendations |
| Dialogue Games | Make complex issues accessible through structured conversation | Democs for Schools helped students discuss nanotechnology through card-based games |
| Scientist Training | Prepare researchers for meaningful public interaction | Small Talk program supported scientists in dialogue skills |
| Multi-Method Approach | Combine different engagement techniques for broader insights | Using 6 different methods allowed comparative analysis of effectiveness |
| Independent Facilitation | Ensure balanced conversation and participant equality | Professional facilitators managed power dynamics between scientists and public |
Critical thinking prompts and balanced information packages proved essential for productive dialogue. Research found that how information is structured—whether by topic or pro-con relevance—had limited impact, but discussion itself had strong positive benefits for participant engagement4 .
Despite its promise, upstream engagement faces significant challenges. The NEG evaluation noted that only "a very few citizens were involved" in most processes, raising questions about representativeness and legitimacy. If the goal is to enhance democratic governance of science, the next challenge is "to increase meaningful participation to include tens of thousands of people not just a small group of citizens".
The journey to bring public voices upstream in nanotechnology development represents more than a series of discrete experiments—it signifies a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between science and society.
By creating spaces for genuine dialogue before technological pathways harden, we acknowledge that the most important questions about emerging technologies are not merely technical ("Can we do it?") but social and ethical ("Should we do it?" and "Toward what ends?").
The UK's nanotechnology engagement experiments demonstrated that scientists and citizens can productively collaborate in navigating the complex ethical and social landscapes of emerging technologies. When researchers leave their laboratories to listen, and when citizens are empowered to contribute their wisdom, both groups transform through the encounter.
As nanotechnology continues to produce astonishing innovations—from targeted drug delivery systems that combat disease to novel materials addressing sustainability challenges—the upstream approach offers a promising model for ensuring these advances align with societal values and aspirations1 2 . In the end, moving engagement upstream isn't about slowing scientific progress, but about enriching it with the diverse perspectives that will ultimately determine whether our technological future is not just innovative, but wise and just.
The conversation continues, and the current is strong—but by navigating these waters together, we stand a better chance of steering toward horizons that benefit all of humanity.