Editorial line of VeilleNanos
A transversal information…
Since the turn of the year 2010-2011, AVICENN is the only actor to relay and provide a transversal information covering all the stakes of nanosciences and nanotechnologies: sanitary, environmental, economic, political, social, ethical, etc.
We are primarily interested in what is happening at the French and European levels, but also pay close attention to international news.
… approached from a citizen’s point of view
Revolutionary” innovations, risks for health, the environment or our freedoms, questions about the usefulness of nanomaterials… How to find your way around? We solicit the various actors (administrations, industries, elected officials, associations, citizens’ groups, etc.) and present their positions in order to give readers the possibility of locating the lines of division or cleavage between them, to better understand the points of disagreement or divergence and to know the games of actors and power relationships – which are sometimes public, sometimes behind the scenes only.
More than the scientific discoveries and technical innovations that often receive wide media coverage, we choose to highlight aspects that are often little covered by the traditional media, whether institutional or scientific, but which are nevertheless of interest to civil society and the citizen, in particular the discussions and debates on :
- the purposes pursued by R&D and the commercialization of nanoproducts (going from patents to commercialization; useful or futile?),
- the orientations and financing of public research on nanotechnologies,
- vigilance regarding the associated health, environmental and ethical risks,
- and the long manufacturing delays of regulations that are behind the industrial development.
We are particularly attentive to the recommendations issued in France and in other countries concerning ethical and governance issues in this vast and complex field.
Reliable, verified and documented information
Unlike many media that often take up the issue of nanotechnology in a sensationalist way, we refuse to relay “promises” or “dangers” without giving the context to the information provided.
We wish to privilege a factual and detailed information, and to adopt a minimum of distance compared to the fads and shortcuts which make “buzz”.
We verify our information at the source or by default as close to the source as possible.
We take care to include notes, references and URL links when available to allow our readers to delve deeper into the topics that interest them, to verify the information we provide and to form their own opinions.
Information accessible to as many people as possible
Faced with the flood of data that we receive or collect, we select, prioritize, synthesize, analyze and popularize the information in order to offer contextualized, concise information expressed in clear language and, as far as possible, understandable by all. This is often a challenge, because the documents we work on are in their great majority very “technical” and full of jargon, whether they are scientific publications, legal texts, or sociological or philosophical analyses…
Independent and pluralist information
We aim at a pluralist and contradictory information, which is not reduced to the expression of a single voice, but on the contrary sheds light on – and allows to overcome – the sometimes antagonistic positions “for or against nanotechnologies”.
Promoters and detractors of nanos exchange allegations in a passionate climate where societal, political and economic issues clash. Our goal is to help ensure that all points of view are heard and to provide information for an informed debate – and then for everyone to form their own opinion and take action.
Far from being neutral, the choice of information communicated is a necessarily oriented political act. In an attempt to avoid a too “marked” orientation, we seek to reflect and situate the plurality of points of view. We are not militant, except for the defense of transparency, access to information and the application of the precautionary principle. Our only political posture is that of questioning and giving knowledge. We position ourselves as “preventers of going in circles”. So that in the end, more informed decisions emerge.