Abstract
Nanotechnology governance, particularly in relation to human and environmental concerns, remains a contested domain. In recent years, the creation of both a risk governance framework and council has been actively pursued. Part of the function of a governance framework is the communication to external stakeholders. Existing descriptions on the public perceptions of nanotechnology are generally positive with the attendant economic and societal benefits being forefront in that thinking. Debates on nanomaterials' risk tend to be dominated by expert groupings while the general public is largely unaware of the potential hazards. Communicating via social media has become an integral part of everyday life facilitating public connectedness around specific topics that was not feasible in the pre-digital age. When civilian passive stakeholders become active their frustration can quickly coalesce into a campaign of resistance, and once an issue starts to develop into a campaign it is difficult to ease the momentum. Simmering discussions with moderate local attention can gain international exposure resulting in pressure and it can, in some cases, quickly precipitate legislative action and/or economic consequences. This paper highlights the potential of such a runaway, twitterstorm. We conducted a sentiment analysis of tweets since 2006 focusing on silver, titanium and carbon-based nanomaterials. We further examined the sentiment expressed following the decision by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to phase out the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171). Our analysis shows an engaged, attentive public, alert to announcements from industry and regulatory bodies. We demonstrate that risk governance frameworks, particularly the communication aspect of those structures must include a social media blueprint to counter misinformation and alleviate the potential impact of a social media induced regulatory and economic reaction.