This EPA STRIVE research fellowship report presents a literature review and fieldwork data for a project that investigated how the topic of nanotechnology can be engaged with by both experts on the topic and nonexperts. The first objective was to map out what can be said about knowledge of nanotechnology in contemporary Ireland. All perspectives on nanotechnology were taken on board, analysed and synthesised, including deviations from the accepted truths about nanotechnology. While perspectives on environmental and health implications were of particular interest, they were not the primary focus in discussions, unless raised by participants and commentators. Methods used for this study included an awareness survey and media and document analyses. The second objective was to pilot a series of nanotechnology communication events, which would provide the basis of a future communications/ consultation strategy for policy-makers. The types of activities used in these events included focus groups, a ‘citizens’ jury’, online forums and an installation in the Science Gallery in Dublin. The contributions from these activities also added to the first objective of addressing nanotechnology knowledge. The third and final objective was to report to the EPA, in order to aid future environmental research associated with public communication and wider science communication and technology assessment policy by the Irish government. The following was concluded from this project: • Scientists were the most prominent voices in public discourse about nanotechnology, but mostly in the context of commercial exploitation and innovation. • Environment and health risks and benefits were tied to social and ethical considerations very closely and participants in public engagement activities were at least as concerned about governance and equity issues (in terms of how nanotechnology is controlled) as they were about the environmental and health implication • Scientists were the most prominent voices in public discourse about nanotechnology, but mostly in the context of commercial exploitation and innovation. • Environment and health risks and benefits were tied to social and ethical considerations very closely and participants in public engagement activities were at least as concerned about governance and equity issues (in terms of how nanotechnology is controlled) as they were about the environmental and health implication • Where nanotechnology was described in the media, it tended to be either framed in commercial terms, or in basic, scientific, didactic terms for education and outreach, for example, ‘nanotechnology is …’ Both representations reduce the chances for nanotechnology risks, of any kind, to be discussed, and are at odds with policy measures of nanotechnology public engagement in other countries. • Dialogicality (expressing multiple voices and views on a topic) was weak in many official nanotechnology texts, new media approaches provided more opportunities for dialogue. • The concept of nanotechnology as an ‘entity’ was important – for young participants in particular. • Levels of attendance at public engagement events were low for the open-invitation focus group and the citizens’ jury pilot especially. The following recommendations are made: • Establish a Convergence Technologies Forum; • Ensure that dialogue initiatives are included for future nanotechnology; • Use all communication channels, including new Web 2.0 media; • Learn from the public engagement mistakes of other emerging technology debates, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs); • Link to global networks already involved in nanotechnology and emerging technology public engagement; • Include social sustainability as a criterion in future EPA- and exchequer-funded research and technology assessment. Even though there is little media or public interest, Nano-Innovation discourses are growing. In any future campaign for nanotechnology, media exposure and public relations require considerable investment. In other countries, dialogue is considered as important as promoting the technology itself. This report offers a ‘menu’ of dialogue models for policy-makers to address the many objectives of nanotechnology strategy, from less dialogic information transfer to public-led dialogue and the public imagining of a future with nanotechnology. If only some of the predictions are accurate, nanotechnology will have many social implications. Much work is necessary to ensure nanotechnology public engagement is taken seriously in Ireland if the technology is an economic priority, or indeed if it has some bearing on progress in health, environment and technology. This report confirms what is found in international studies of science and society – public engagement needs to be about what can be accepted, not what can be sold. This report recommends that, for a more inclusive approach to nanotechnology knowledge – and to avoid another ‘GM scenario’ – dialogue must form the basis of the communication strategy with embedded ‘triple bottom line’ values, that is, where society and environment are given the same level of importance currently granted to the economy.