First, think about the question this way – does information technology need PR? Not really, because there are so many IT companies who are doing PR for their products and services. The collective effect of all these individual efforts is more effective than a generic IT industry program could be, because they’re talking about specific implementations of technology that produce tangible results. And the more tangible the results, the better the PR.

For example, an IT advocate or industry association could talk about how computers are beginning to be capable of higher-level interactivity and sophisticated language analysis. Cool enough, but nowhere near as compelling or intuitive as IBM having its Watson system successfully play Jeopardy against human opponents. That brilliant, unabashed publicity stunt was a tangible, fun demonstration of the potential of next-generation IT, and it captured the attention and imagination of many millions of people (including some who will want to do business with IBM as a result).

Second, the nanotechnology sector is extremely diverse, and the innovations are often way upstream from consumer-facing companies. This makes it difficult to create some equivalent of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, or the Consumer Electronics Association. There just isn’t enough common ground or business benefit to put together a broad-based outreach campaign, although nanotech groups can provide useful support with industry statistics, access to expert analysis, and events that bring together innovators and media (and websites like Nano and Me, which highlight accomplishments).

Ultimately, the best PR for nanotechnology is the introduction of nanotech-based products that make people’s lives better – a coat that saves a firefighter’s life, a drug delivery system that lets kids avoid injections, a battery that makes electric cars practical. Fortunately, this is already under way, and I suspect that five years from now, no one will be worried about a lack of publicity for nanotechnology and its accomplishments.

Drexler and Co have tried to talk about it, but society has partly ignored them; but, they’ve also had to fund nanotech anyways. Drexler and Co have tried to talk tuff and say we need people to discuss ethics and all; this starts an effor to do so; but, these things whither away because society is stuck in its ways; those ethicsal issues are vague anyways and end up solving themselves.

No it doesn’t need a promotional campaign trying to sell it to society. That could easily backfire.

Yes the many nanotechnologies, their individual applications and potential do need to be explained better and more imaginatively to the public, and the public need to have opportunities to be more involved in shaping the way that it is used, particularly in the more controversial areas.

In addition those using the technology to enable their products need to be more open about their use, the real benefits it brings, not the spurious benefits to the companies themselves at the expense of the public. They need to be more responsible in the way they develop and use nano and explain the benefit, toxicology and uncertainty in such a way that those who are interested can easily access the information.

So No to a PR puffing up nano as the best thing since sliced bread, but yes to a two way programme of communication and engagement. We started this a few years ago with a public website, developed with the aim to be impartial and informative, but couldn’t get it funded. Take a look if you are interested on http://www.nanoandme.org