Summary report for the validation of individual final versions of visualisation tools

This deliverable comes out of Task 3.4.[Lead:UnivLeeds, Support: BfR, Tomato, ZSI, PlayGen, Studio HB] Once the visualisation tools have been completed in WP2 (Task 2.3), this task will check the translation of content provided to ensure that the scientific validity of the content meets scientific rigour and that the concepts and scale comparators explored in the tools are consistent with the lexicon being defined in Task 3.1; each tool and its content will be validated and a report compiled for each to sign-off each tool for release to WP4 for piloting. These validation reports will also compile further information relating to the scientific, technology and product contents used to construct the tool that would allow future developments to be made. This process will be repeated for the tools that come back from the piloting events (Task 4.2) with recommendation for changes; these changes can be of technical nature (i.e. the communication or visualisation technology chosen needs to be tweaked), or of scientific nature (i.e. the scientific content needs to be changed/amended). In both cases, WP2 (task 2.3) and WP3 (Task 3.4) will collaborate on the implementation of the recommended changes. 't is a major objective of Risk Communication to increase the risk maturity of the public. Thus, a targeted and balanced information acquisition is necessary to reach an objective basis for generating personal risk-benefit estimation and derived risk behavior. In conjunction with visualization concepts SeeingNano will provide tools (e.g. play cards) that allow an objective evaluation of the existing plurality information sources. Related to selected areas of application (e.g. nano-silver in textiles, nano-titanium dioxide in suntan cream, carbon nanotubes) polarized information will be juxtaposed and based on a (electronic) check-list it will be demonstrated to what extent criteria of “Good Practices in Risk Communication” are fulfilled (e.g. questions like 'Are sources named?', 'Are the conclusions on the risk-benefit assessment transparently listed?', 'Are framing-effects used to influence readers opinion?').