Espace public, médiations, reconnaissance : Eléments de reconstruction d'une théorie critique de la communication

Résumé en français Après un examen critique de la théorie des médias et de la culture développée par l'Ecole de Francfort, abordée ici principalement au travers des oeuvres de T.W. Adorno et de Jürgen Habeimas, ce travail en propose une reconstruction en s'inspirant de la théorie de la reconnaissance d'Axel Honneth. Envisagée sous un angle narratif, la communication publique est vue comme un processus engageant à la fois des relations de reconnaissance et leur négation sous la double forme de la réification et du mépris. La recherche développe une approche des médias sensible à ces tensions et conflits ainsi qu'aux luttes pour la reconnaissance qui travaillent la scène publique, y compris dans sa dimension esthétique. Title and abstract in english « Public sphere, mediations, recognition. Reconstruction elements of a critical theory of communication ». After a critical discussion of media and culture theory developped by the Frankfurt School presented here mainly through the works of T.W. Adorno and Jürgen Habermas, this research proposes to reconstruct it on the basis of the theory of recognition developed by Axel Honneth. Considered through the perspective of narrative, public communication in is seen as a process implying at the same time recognition relations and their negation through the double process of reification and disrespect. The research develops an approach of media which is attentive to those tensions and conflicts and to the struggles for recognition that forms public sphere, also in his aesthetic dimension.

NanoImpactNet - building a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials

NanoImpactNet (NIN) is a multidisciplinary European Commission funded network on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) impact of nanomaterials. The 24 founding scientific institutes are leading European research groups active in the fields of nanosafety, nanorisk assessment and nanotoxicology. This 4-year project is the new focal point for information exchange within the research community. Contact with other stakeholders is vital and their needs are being surveyed. NIN is communicating with 100s of stakeholders: businesses; internet platforms; industry associations; regulators; policy makers; national ministries; international agencies; standard-setting bodies and NGOs concerned by labour rights, EHS or animal welfare. To improve this communication, internet research, a questionnaire distributed via partners and targeted phone calls were used to identify stakeholders' interests and needs. Knowledge gaps and the necessity for further data mentioned by representatives of all stakeholder groups in the targeted phone calls concerned: • the potential toxic and safety hazards of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycles; • the fate and persistence of nanoparticles in humans, animals and the environment; • the associated risks of nanoparticle exposure; • greater participation in: the preparation of nomenclature, standards, methodologies, protocols and benchmarks; • the development of best practice guidelines; • voluntary schemes on responsibility; • databases of materials, research topics and themes, but also of expertise. These findings suggested that stakeholders and NIN researchers share very similar knowledge needs, and that open communication and free movement of knowledge will benefit both researchers and industry. Subsequently a workshop was organised by NIN focused on building a sustainable multi-stakeholder dialogue. Specific questions were asked to different stakeholder groups to encourage discussions and open communication. 1. What information do stakeholders need from researchers and why? The discussions about this question confirmed the needs identified in the targeted phone calls. 2. How to communicate information? While it was agreed that reporting should be enhanced, commercial confidentiality and economic competition were identified as major obstacles. It was recognised that expertise was needed in the areas of commercial law and economics for a wellinformed treatment of this communication issue. 3. Can engineered nanomaterials be used safely? The idea that nanomaterials are probably safe because some of them have been produced 'for a long time', was questioned, since many materials in common use have been proved to be unsafe. The question of safety is also about whether the public has confidence. New legislation like REACH could help with this issue. Hazards do not materialise if exposure can be avoided or at least significantly reduced. Thus, there is a need for information on what can be regarded as acceptable levels of exposure. Finally, it was noted that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe material but only boundaries. At this moment we do not know where these boundaries lie. The matter of labelling of products containing nanomaterials was raised, as in the public mind safety and labelling are connected. This may need to be addressed since the issue of nanomaterials in food, drink and food packaging may be the first safety issue to attract public and media attention, and this may have an impact on 'nanotechnology as a whole. 4. Do we need more or other regulation? Any decision making process should accommodate the changing level of uncertainty. To address the uncertainties, adaptations of frameworks such as REACH may be indicated for nanomaterials. Regulation is often needed even if voluntary measures are welcome because it mitigates the effects of competition between industries. Data cannot be collected on voluntary bases for example. NIN will continue with an active stakeholder dialogue to further build on interdisciplinary relationships towards a healthy future with nanotechnology.