People & Science

A publication of the British Science Association

22/12/2014

Show me content for... +

Show me content for...
Events
Resources
Volunteers
Teachers
Professional development
Families & teenagers (aged 12+)
Families (children aged 12 & under)

Donate

register

Register with us and you can....

  • Sign up to our free e-communications
  • Become a member of the Association
  • Create your own web account, & post comments
  • Be part of British Science Festival
  • Save your favourite items

Register

Keep up to date with the latest news from the British Science Assocation. Sign up to our RSS feeds and take us with you when you are on the move.

You are here

Shorts: March 2010

A nano-scale problem?

The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology has published a report criticising the food industry for lack of transparency on its research into the uses of nanotechnology and nanomaterials.

Secrecy

`We observed... that the food industry... was very reluctant to talk about whether or not they were intending to develop products,' Lord Krebs, who chaired this inquiry of the committee, told People & Science.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology has published a report criticising the food industry for lack of transparency on its research into the uses of nanotechnology and nanomaterials.

Secrecy

`We observed... that the food industry... was very reluctant to talk about whether or not they were intending to develop products,' Lord Krebs, who chaired this inquiry of the committee, told People & Science.

Sue Davies, chief policy adviser of consumer group Which? gave evidence to the Select Committee.  She told People & Science, `We're quite excited about nanotechnology and we think it's going to have lots of benefits for consumers... but we're also concerned. [We need to] have a sensible meaningful debate and understand what the public would find useful. We need to know about the timescale for development and what's likely to happen when, but it's very difficult to find that out.'

Grey goo and benefits

Krebs expanded: `The general feeling we got from the food industry was... a concern that those who mounted the campaign against GM will mount a campaign against the “grey goo,” as the Prince of Wales called it, of nanotechnology.  We felt very much that the food industry... should be promoting a wider dialogue.'

Julian Hunt, director of communications at the Food and Drink Federation, defended the industry. `The criticism's probably a bit harsh,’ he told People & Science.  With GM there was hype and a lack of clarity of the benefits for consumers.  [Industry] will start to talk about benefits only when they're clear what they're going to be and when they are ready to commercialize a product.  Because we're not at that stage, there appears to be a deafening silence.'

Open and engaged?

He continued, `Manufacturers are trying to be as open and engaged on the debates about this technology as possible. Consumer groups are involved in a lot of stakeholder discussions at a European level, but it's not sexy or interesting enough to generate stories or commentary pieces in the media. They prefer to run stories about “grey goo”.  It's very difficult to counter that.'

Lord Krebs is not convinced:  `It's not a valid response to say this is three to five years away and we haven't got any sexy stories to tell, because the whole point is about having the debate early on.  Because the food industry is not promoting a balanced dialogue, the communication space occupied by the antis.' 

Briefing documents available from Which? And the Food and Drink Federation:

http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/what-we-do/which-policy/nanotechnology/index.jsp

http://www.fdf.org.uk/keyissues.aspx?issue=679

Patient engagement

Greater public involvement has made a beneficial impact on health research, according to a new report, but it can be hard to measure.

Impacts on research

Greater public involvement has made a beneficial impact on health research, according to a new report, but it can be hard to measure.

Impacts on research

Involvement makes a difference to health research, its outcomes and stakeholders, a recent report has revealed.  ‘Some of those are very easily measured,’ report author Kristina Staley of Twocan Associates told People & Science. ‘For instance... a 40 per cent recruitment rate [of patients to a research project] that went up to 70 per cent after you changed things after input from people that are likely to participate. But there are lots of things that change that are much more qualitative in nature, and that's much harder to measure.'

Staley’s report was for INVOLVE, a national advisory group that promotes and supports greater public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research.

Measuring

Measurement is a problem. Emily Fennell of Involve, a different organisation of not-for-profit public participation specialists, also examined how public and patient engagement (PPE) and public confidence in the NHS are measured.2 She told People & Science,`[Current measurement] instruments... are pretty ineffectual when you take into account the variety of organisations working in the health field and the different types of engagement going on.  Because you can't make the link between engagement and clinical improvements, it's hard to promote engagement to clinicians and management staff [and] there's constant change not just in structures but also in NHS policies and priorities.'

Embedding

But although measurement is difficult, PPE is spreading. Joan Walsh, policy research and campaign manager at the Picker Institute, a not-for-profit organisation that makes patients' views count in healthcare, conducted a survey of primary care trusts to explore whether the Department of Health's resolve to improve PPE was having an effect. `We found that [it] had really gone up the agenda in two different ways.  Executive responsibility for PPE had gone upwards towards chief executive... [or] director level.  The other shift we noticed was that PPE was now seen as everyone's job, not just the PPE lead's job.'

Necessary?

Kristina Staley was adamant that there’s no one simple measure for all forms of public engagement, in all contexts.  `Every study is different.  A clinical trial is very, very different from a public health intervention to prevent teenage pregnancy.  There’s this kind of Holy Grail – we’ve got to find a robust measure... [appropriate] in every example – and maybe you just can’t’, she said.

914
11807
Sticky problems
Marcus du Sautoy has given his inaugural lecture as...
more
915
11807
Broadcast Yourscience
The Planet-SciCast collection of the public's own s...
more
916
11807
You're just talking to yourselves!
Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other, r...
more
917
11807
STFC funding
The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC...
more
918
11807
Complaints department
Last September, Science Minister Lord Drayson asked...
more
919
11807
Nano me
The Responsible Nano Forum have produced a website...
more
920
11807
Consultation on the Research Excellence Framework
The Higher Education Funding Council for England is...
more
Dr Joanna Carpenter
Dr Joanna Carpenter is the Shorts Editor
Join the debate...
Log in or register to post comments