041040

Nano versus nano:The fight for publicunderstanding ofnanotechnology

JOHN ANDREW

CARRUTHERS DEBATES

WHETHER ALL

PUBLICITY REALLY IS

GOOD PUBLICITY.

Like so many areas of research,nanotechnology can be discussedquite easily with people who

understand it, but can effortlessly mutateinto a perfect nightmare when explainingit to people who do not. At some time oranother, many of us will have been placedin a position where it was necessary toexplain our professions and areas ofresearch to people who may notunderstand them. On many occasions,such people seem keen yet are completelydumbfounded by colourful explanations.There is a sense of dismay as they andothers ‘misinterpret’ descriptions, askseemingly unrelated questions, andgenerally find endeavours at explanationincomprehensible and bewildering.

In the main, people are quite genuinelyeither oblivious to nanotechnology, or have adecidedly skewed notion of ‘what it does’.This chasm within public understandingcan be quite easily filled by other means,and the real difficulty is when that chasmbecomes filled by marketing communications,rather than fact.

Ideas expressed through marketingcommunications by companies wishing tobuild brands and sell products, is ascenario that may initiate a new publicconsciousness concerning nanotechnology.Using the spectrum of marketing tools thatare deployed throughout broadcast, print,ambient and digital media, ideas in thisinstance would not be formed on the basisof what nanotechnology is, but rather on afusion of ideas and associations constructedaround 'brand nano', that is to say the goods

and services that carry the word ‘nano’ intheir brand names.

Selling the nano brandFor example, the iPod Nano by Apple issuggested to consumers as being cool andcontemporary, with such positive aspectslikely to become one with the word ‘nano’as well. Yet, the opposite can also be true,and this is why marketing communicationsrepresent a risk to nanotechnology as awhole, for now at least. If the iPod Nanowas to become yesterday’s technology - asinevitably most technologies do – the word‘nano’ would most likely become infusedwith the negative associations that would beintertwined with the demise of its big brandnamesake. As the public lacks any kind ofmeaningful knowledge of nanotechnology,that scenario may achieve little more for thescience apart from being misleadingand confusing.

It would seem obvious that to leavemarketing practitioners with the task ofbuilding positive equity for nanotechnologyis an eminently risky strategy. Whenattempting to analyse the wider impact ofthis, many pertinent examples can be takenfrom argument surrounding that which isarguably brand nano’s current champion,the Tata Nano car.

Nano? No! No!The Tata Nano is so named by virtue of itssmall stature in tandem with itscomparatively small price. On the surface, itwould seem highly positive for any vehicleto boast the attributes of being lightweightand affordable. However, there are negative

FEATURE

© IoN Publishing 2009 • All rights reserved.NANO Magazine • Issue 14 • October 2009

FEATURE

042

aspects surrounding the Tata Nano as well.In West Bengal - an Indian state frequentlymarred by political in-fighting – Tataproposed to establish its production basefor the Nano at Singur. This intention wasmet with robust disapproval from theTrinamool Congress leader MamataBanerjee, and from throngs of farmersclaiming foul play by Tata in its bid tosecure land in West Bengal’s farming belt.

With the situation worsening by the day,Banerjee went on a hunger strike, whileprotesters burnt effigies of the Tata Nanoand held banners with such slogans as‘Nano? No! No!’ For many though, thedefining moment of the whole sorry episodein Singur was not even the politicalposturing or social unrest, but the death ofan eighteen year-old Save FarmlandCommittee campaigner Tapasi Malik whohad been viciously raped and burnt todeath, reportedly at the hands of partymembers belonging to the Communist Partyof India (Marxist).

Since Singur, things have not seemed somuch brighter for 'brand nano' in the publicdomain. Tata has since proposed shifting itsproduction base to a new site at Sanand inthe Tata family heartland of Gujarat. Thoughthis stemmed the bulk of criticism fromfarmers and politicians in West Bengal, theTata Nano quickly became the focus offresh criticism from environmental activistsand commentators who claimed that theaffordability of the Nano would lead to anupsurge in the volume of vehicles on roadsaround the world, which in turn would bedamaging to the environment. Moreover,Silver Nano, the brand name of a Samsungproduced antibacterial technology whichuses silver nanoparticles in various whitegoods and home appliances, has continuedto receive criticism from campaigners rangingfrom environmental organisations to academicsand journalists who have drawn attention tothe potentially toxic effects of the product.

Such negativity is never good for anybrand, and the old theory which held thatany publicity is good publicity has longsince been exposed as absurd. What makesthe Tata Nano example worthy of particularattention – potentially at least – is thecollateral damage which could be sufferedby nanotechnology as a result of the wave ofnegative publicity that ‘brand nano’ received.Once the divisions between nanotechnologyand ‘brand nano’ become blurred, thenegative press of one can easily spread tothe other. As unreasonable as this mayseem, it nevertheless means that publicopinion of nanotechnology – be it consciouslyor subliminally – is liable to be hugelyinfluenced by events like the violence inSingur and the death of Tapasi Malik.

Recluse scientists need not applyRelying on public forgetfulness,indifference, or substandard mediacoverage as a means of dealing with thisproblem is lazy, and very likely to result inlarger difficulties concerning long-termmisunderstanding of nanotechnology. It isimportant therefore for scientists and othersinvolved in the field of nanotechnology totake the lead in informing the public onwhat nanotechnology is all about, so thatbrand nano does not become the basis forunderstanding. A multitude of methods areavailable to achieve this, be they blogging,podcasting, video posting, twittering, orotherwise. There remains a stereotype ofthe scientist as a social recluse and a poorcommunicator, in spite of the attempts thathave been made to shake this image off.Nevertheless, it is time that publicunderstanding of nanotechnology wasformed through the explanations of thosewho understand it, and not by those that arepaid to use erroneous associations with it tosell products.

John Andrew Carruthers is a PhD researcherfrom the University of the West of Scotland

n

IN THE MAIN, PEOPLEARE QUITE GENUINELY

EITHER OBLIVIOUS TONANOTECHNOLOGY, ORHAVE A DECIDEDLYSKEWED NOTION OF ‘WHATIT DOES’. THE REALDIFFICULTY IS WHEN THATCHASM BECOMES FILLEDBY MARKETINGCOMMUNICATIONS,RATHER THAN FACT.

043© IoN Publishing 2009 • All rights reserved.NANO Magazine • Issue 14 • October 2009