Editorial line of VeilleNanos
Since the 2010-2011 turning point, AVICENN has been the only player to relay and provide cross-cutting information covering all the issues of nanosciences and nanotechnologies: health, environmental, economic, political, social, ethical issues, 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 point of view of the citizen interest
“Revolutionary” innovations, risks to health, the environment or our freedoms, questions about the usefulness of nanomaterials… How to navigate? We solicit the various actors (administrations, industries, elected officials, associations, collectives of citizens, etc.) and present their position in order to give readers the possibility of situating the lines of division or cleavage between one and the other, to better to understand the points of disagreement or divergence and to know the games of actors and the balance of power – which take place, sometimes in a public way, sometimes only behind the scenes.
More than the scientific discoveries and technical innovations which often benefit from wide media coverage, we thus choose to highlight aspects that are often little relayed by the traditional, institutional or scientific media, but which are nevertheless of interest to civil society and the citizen, in particular discussions and debates on:
- the aims pursued by R&D and the commercialization of nanoproducts (transition from patents to commercialization; useful or futile?),
- orientations and financing of public research on nanotechnologies,
- vigilance regarding the health, environmental and ethical risks associated with it,
- and the long delays in manufacturing regulations lagging behind industrial development.
We are particularly attentive to the recommendations issued in France and in other countries concerning questions of ethics and governance in this vast and complex field.
Reliable, verified and documented information
Unlike many media, which often take up the issue of nanotechnology from a sensationalist angle, we refuse to relay “promises” or “dangers” without giving the elements of context regarding the information provided.
We want to favor factual and detailed information, and adopt a minimum distance from the fads and shortcuts that make the "buzz".
We verify our information at the source or by default as close to the source as possible.
We take care to match our documents with notes, references and URL links when they exist to allow our readers to deepen the subjects that interest them, to verify the information that we make available to them and to form their own opinion.
Information accessible to as many people as possible
Faced with the flood of data that we receive or collect, we carry out a work of selection, prioritization, synthesis, analysis and popularization of information in order to offer contextualized, concise information expressed in clear language and, in the possible, understandable by all. Often a challenge, because the documents we work on are mostly very "technical" and full of jargon, whether they are scientific publications, legal texts, or sociological or philosophical analyses...
Independent and pluralist information
We are aiming for pluralistic and contradictory information, which is not reduced to the expression of a single voice, but on the contrary clarifies – and makes it possible to go beyond – the sometimes antagonistic positions “for or against nanotechnologies”.
Promoters and detractors of nanos exchange allegations in a passionate atmosphere where societal, political and economic issues clash. We intend to contribute to ensuring that all points of view are heard and to provide elements of information allowing a reasoned debate – everyone is then free to form their own opinion and to act.
Far from being neutral, the choice of the information communicated is a necessarily oriented political act. In an attempt to avoid an orientation that is too "marked", we seek to reflect and situate the plurality of points of view. We are not part of a militant approach, except for the defense of transparency, access to information and the application of the precautionary principle. Our only political posture is that which consists in questioning and making known. We position ourselves as “hinderers of going around in circles”. So that ultimately more informed decisions emerge.