Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology

This article presents early results from an opinion formation study based on a 76-member panel of U.S. citizens, with comparison data from a group of 177 nanotechnology experts. While initially similar to the expert group in terms of their perceptions of the risks, benefits, and need for regulation characterizing several forms of nanotechnology, the first follow-up survey indicates that the panel is beginning to diverge from the experts, particularly with respect to perceptions of the levels of various “societal” risks that nanotechnology might present. The data suggest that responding to public concerns may involve more than attention to physical risks in areas such as health and environment; concerns about other forms of risk actually appear more salient.     

The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies

We report findings from a national telephone survey on levels of knowledge about and attitudes toward nanotechnology that demonstrate how people make decisions about emerging technologies. Our findings confirm previous research that suggests that people form opinions and attitudes even in the absence of relevant scientific or policy-related information. In fact, our data show that cognitive shortcuts or heuristics – often provided by mass media – are currently a key factor in influencing how the public thinks about nanotechnology and about its risks and benefits, and in determining the level of support among the public for further funding for research in this area.     

Nanotechnology in the public eye: the case of Iran,as a developing country

Using survey data, public awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology are examined in Iran (N = 759). Iran is a developing country with a national nanotechnology action plan for a ten year period starting from 2003 and has been active in the field of research and development of nanotechnology meanwhile. First, the results show that majority of people are still not familiar with nanotechnology and perceived risks posed by this technology are not considered to be a lot and most people feel its benefits outweigh the risks. The emotions toward this technology are of a hopeful and positive nature and this technology is looked upon favorably in Iran. In particular, our results reveals that although the level of trust is high specially in scientists to communicate the risks with the public, there are a great number who just have some trust not quite a lot of it. Knowing that it is a hard and time-consuming effort to manage a nation’s view on nanotechnology, extensive research as well as collaboration with other countries is needed to effectively communicate the risks in time.     

Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science,methodological knowledge,epistemological beliefs,and beliefs about science

In this article, we report data from an online questionnaire study with 587 respondents, representative for the adult U.S. population in terms of age, gender, and level of education. The aim of this study was to assess how interest in science and knowledge as well as beliefs about science are associated with risk and benefit perceptions of nanotechnology. The findings suggest that the U.S. public is still rather unfamiliar with nanotechnology. Those who have some knowledge mainly have gotten it from TV and the Internet. The content of current media reports is perceived as fairly positive. Knowledge of scientific methods is unrelated to benefit and risk perceptions, at least when other predictors are controlled. In contrast, positive beliefs about science (e.g., its impact on economy or health) and more sophisticated epistemological beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge are moderately linked to more positive perceptions of nanotechnology. The only exception is the perception of scientific uncertainty: This is associated with less positive evaluations. Finally, higher engagement with science is associated with higher risk perceptions. These findings show that laypersons who are engaged with science and who are aware of the inherent uncertainty of scientific evidence might perceive nanotechnology in a somewhat more differentiated way, contrary to how it is portrayed in the media today.     

Nanotechnology as an experiment in democracy: how do citizens form opinions about technology and policy?

This article analyzes nanotechnology as an experiment in democratic deliberation, one that seems motivated both by a desire to improve deliberative democracy and to protect the technology from undue public interference. However, rather than involving amplified (overstated) risks, nanotechnology appears to involve attenuated (understated) risks. Results from a 3-year panel study are presented to illustrate the ways in which citizens form opinions about nanotechnology, supporting the assertion that public opinion about complex technology can be both reasonable and stable. Nevertheless, the authors also voice concern that, in the absence of public pressure, risk regulation may not evolve as swiftly as it should to protect both society and industry.     

Leading US nano-scientists’ perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings

Despite the significant increase in the use of nanotechnology in academic research and commercial products over the past decade, there have been few studies that have explored scientists’ perceptions and attitudes about the technology. In this article, we use survey data from the leading U.S. nano-scientists to explore their perceptions about two issues: the public communication of research findings and media coverage of nanotechnology, which serves as one relatively rapid outlet for public communication. We find that leading U.S. nano-scientists do see an important connection between the public communication of research findings and public attitudes about science. Also, there is a connection between the scientists’ perceptions about media coverage and their views on the timing of public communication; scientists with positive attitudes about the media are more likely to support immediate public communication of research findings, while others believe that communication should take place only after research findings have been published through a peer-review process. We also demonstrate that journalists might have a more challenging time getting scientists to talk with them about nanotechnology news stories because nano-scientists tend to view media coverage of nanotechnology as less credible and less accurate than general science media coverage. We conclude that leading U.S. nano-scientists do feel a sense of responsibility for communicating their research findings to the public, but attitudes about the timing and the pathway of that communication vary across the group.     

The changing information environment for nanotechnology: online audiences and content

The shift toward online communication in all realms, from print newspapers to broadcast television, has implications for how the general public consumes information about nanotechnology. The goal of this study is threefold: to investigate who is using online sources for information and news about science and nanotechnology, to examine what the general public is searching for online with regards to nanotechnology, and to analyze what they find in online content of nanotechnology. Using survey data, we find those who report the Internet as their primary source of science and technology news are diverse in age, more knowledgeable about science and nanotechnology, highly educated, male, and more diverse racially than users of other media. In a comparison of demographic data on actual visits by online users to general news and science Web sites, science sites attracted more male, non-white users from the Western region of the United States than news sites did. News sites, on the other hand, attracted those with a slightly higher level of education. Our analysis of published estimates of keyword searches on nanotechnology reveals people are turning to the Internet to search for keyword searches related to the future, health, and applications of nanotechnology. A content analysis of online content reveals health content dominates overall. Comparisons of content in different types of sites—blogs, government, and general sites—are conducted.     

Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance

After identifying the main characteristics and prospects of nanotechnology as an emerging technology, the paper presents the general risks associated with nanotechnology applications and the deficits of the risk governance process today, concluding with recommendations to governments, industry, international organizations and other stakeholders. The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) has identified a governance gap between the requirements pertaining to the nano- rather than the micro-/macro- technologies. The novel attributes of nanotechnology demand different routes for risk-benefit assessment and risk management, and at present, nanotechnology innovation proceeds ahead of the policy and regulatory environment. In the shorter term, the governance gap is significant for those passive nanostructures that are currently in production and have high exposure rates; and is especially significant for the several ‘active’ nanoscale structures and nanosystems that we can expect to be on the market in the near future. Active nanoscale structures and nanosystems have the potential to affect not only human health and the environment but also aspects of social lifestyle, human identity and cultural values. The main recommendations of the report deal with selected higher risk nanotechnology applications, short- and long-term issues, and global models for nanotechnology governance.     

Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies

To better explore and understand the public's perceptions of and attitudes toward emerging technologies and food products, we conducted a US-based focus group study centered on nanotechnology, nano-food, and nano-food labeling. Seven focus groups were conducted in seven locations in two different US metropolitan areas from September 2010 to January 2011. In addition to revealing context-specific data on already established risk and public perception factors, our goal was to inductively identify other nano-food perception factors of significance for consideration when analyzing why and how perceptions and attitudes are formed to nanotechnology in food. Two such factors that emerged—altruism and skepticism—are particularly interesting in that they may be situated between different theoretical frameworks that have been used for explaining perception and attitude. We argue that they may represent a convergence point among theories that each help explain different aspects of both how food nanotechnologies are perceived and why those perceptions are formed. In this paper, we first review theoretical frameworks for evaluating risk perception and attitudes toward emerging technologies, then review previous work on public perception of nanotechnology and nano-food, describe our qualitative content analysis results for public perception toward nano-food—focusing especially on altruism and skepticism, and discuss implications of these findings in terms of how public attitudes toward nano-food could be formed and understood. Finally, we propose that paying attention to these two factors may guide more responsible development of nano-food in the future.     

Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology

Using a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,015 adults in the United States, this study examines how value predispositions, communication variables, and perceptions of risks and benefits are associated with public support for federal funding of nanotechnology. Our findings show that highly religious individuals were less supportive of funding of nanotech than less religious individuals, whereas individuals who held a high deference for scientific authority were more supportive of funding of the emerging technology than those low in deference. Mass media use and elaborative processing of scientific news were positively associated with public support for funding, whereas factual scientific knowledge had no significant association with policy choices. The findings suggest that thinking about and reflecting upon scientific news promote better understanding of the scientific world and may provide a more sophisticated cognitive structure for the public to form opinions about nanotech than factual scientific knowledge. Finally, heuristic cues including trust in scientists and perceived risks and benefits of nanotech were found to be associated with public support for nanotech funding. We conclude with policy implications that will be useful for policymakers and science communication practitioners.     

Nanotechnology and society

Past experience has shown that the successful introduction of a new technology requires careful attention to the interactions between the technology and society. These interactions are bi-directional: on the one hand, technology changes and challenges social patterns and, on the other hand, the governance structures and values of the society affect progress in developing the technology. Nanotechnology is likely to be particularly affected by these kinds of interactions because of its great promise and the unusually early public attention it has received. Moreover, it represents a new kind of experiment in packaging a rather wide range of fundamental research activities under a single “mission-like” umbrella. Although this gives it more impetus as a field, it sets a higher bar for showing successful applications early on and because it links disparate fields, regulatory regimes reasonable for one kind of nanotechnology development may be inappropriately extended to others. There are a number of lessons to be gleaned from experience with the introduction of other technologies, which offer guidance with respect to what pitfalls to avoid and what issues to be sensitive to as we move forward with the development of nanotechnology applications. The problems encountered by nuclear power point out the dangers of over-promising and the role the need for the technology plays in ameliorating fears of risk. The public reaction to biomedical engineering and biotechnology highlights, in addition, the cultural factors that come into play when technologies raise questions about what is “natural” and what is “foreign” and what conceptions are involved in defining “personhood”. In all cases, it has been clear that a main task for those introducing new technology is building public trust–in the safety of the technologies and the integrity of those introducing it. The advocates of nanotechnology have already shown that they are generally aware of the need to consider the public’s reaction, and they have taken the first steps to act on that awareness. We have to build on those beginnings, not limiting our considerations simply to issues of safety. If we do so well, we have the opportunity to develop a new paradigm for technology introduction, which will serve society well in the future.     

Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts

Researchers are faced with challenges when addressing the public on concepts and applications associated with nanotechnology. The goal of our work was to understand the public’s knowledge of nanotechnology in order to identify appropriate starting points for dialog. Survey results showed that people lack true understanding of concepts associated with atoms and the size of the nanoscale regime. Such gaps in understanding lead to a disappointing lack of communication between researchers and the public concerning fundamental concepts in nanoscale science and engineering. Strategies are offered on how scientists should present their research when engaging the public on nanotechnology topics. Since the time of writing, O.M. Castellini has relocated to the Department of Science and Technology, Museum of Science and Industry, 57th Street and Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.     

The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God,techno-scientific progress,and interfering with nature

Using survey data, we examine public attitudes toward and awareness of nanotechnology in Germany (N = 750). First, it is shown that a majority of the people are still not familiar with nanotechnology. In addition, diffusion of information about nanotechnology thus far mostly seems to reach men and people with a relative higher educational background. Also, pro-science and technology views are positively related with nanotech familiarity. Results further show that a majority of the people have an indifferent, ambiguous, or non-attitude toward nanotechnology. Multinomial logit analyses further reveal that nanotech familiarity is positively related with people’s attitudes. In addition, it is shown that traditional religiosity is unrelated to attitudes and that individual religiosity is weakly related to nanotechnology attitudes. However, moral covariates other than religiosity seem of major importance. In particular, our results show that more negative views on technological and scientific progress as well as more holistic views about the relation between people and the environment increase the likelihood of having a negative attitude toward nanotechnology.     

The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges

A January 2005 telephone survey of 1200 people in the U.S. and 2000 Canadians provides a snapshot of current North American opinion regarding nanotechnology at this crucial early point in its emergence from the laboratory to the arena of public discourse and public understanding. Using a typology of “publics” developed through analysis of a previous comparative survey (Priest, S., 2006) and subsequently tested against these newer data (Priest, S., 2005) this article describes the opinion climate for nanotechnology across North America. The comparison of key results from the two countries helps illustrate how social and cultural differences contribute to reactions to new technologies, including nanotech. The article also discusses implications for nanotechnology-related public outreach and risk communication efforts.     

National nanotechnology partnership to protect workers

Nanotechnology is predicted to improve many aspects of human life. By 2015, it is estimated to represent $3.1 trillion in manufactured goods. Data is emerging that exposure to nanomaterials may pose a health risk to workers. If the economic promise of nanotechnology is to be achieved, ways need to be found to protect nanotechnology workers now. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHAct) gave the responsibility to protect workers to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) through research, standards adoption, and standards enforcement. Since 1980, adopting new occupational health standards has grown more complex. The increased complexity has greatly slowed efforts to adopt protective standards for toxic agents that are well-known to pose significant risks. The likelihood of rapidly adopting standards to protect workers from nanomaterials, whose risks are just emerging, seems even more unlikely. Use of the OSHAct’s general duty clause to protect workers also seems uncertain at this time. In the interim, a national partnership led by NIOSH involving nanotech manufacturers and downstream users, workers, academic researchers, safety, and health practitioners is proposed. A National Nanotechnology Partnership would generate knowledge about the nature and the extent of worker risk, utilize that knowledge to develop risk control strategies to protect nanotechnology workers now, and provide an evidence base for NIOSH recommendations to OSHA for a nanotechnology program standard at a future date.     

The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology

The growing importance of nanotechnology in industry and society has not been accompanied by a widespread understanding of the subject among the general public. Simple questions to initially probe the smallest thing that people can see and can think of reveals a divide in the understanding of the general public. A survey of 1500 individuals ranging in age from 6 to 74 has revealed a lack of knowledge of nanotechnology and especially a lack of understanding of the context of nanotechnology in the world that is too small to see. Survey findings are corroborated by in-depth interviews with 400 adults in studies of nanoscience literacy commisioned by University of California, Berkeley and Cornell in 2002 and 2004, respectively. In general, with the exception of 14–28 year olds, over 60% of respondents say they have never heard of nano or nanotechnology. The results suggest that the general public, especially middle-school children, has no firm foundation to understand nanotechnology and likely will continue to be equally impressed by credible scientific information as well as pure fictional accounts of nanotechnology.     

Shape-influenced magnetic properties of CoO nanoparticles

Despite uncertainty about the potential human health and environmental risks of nanotechnology, major stakeholders such as regulatory agencies and the nanotechnology industry are already negotiating the emerging regulatory framework for nanotechnology. Because of a relative lack of nano-specific regulations, the future of nanotechnology development will depend greatly on the views held by the nanotechnology industry. This study fills the research gap in understanding how the nanotechnology industry perceives the risks of nanotechnology. This is the first interview-based study of the nanotechnology industry in the United States. Semi-structured, open-ended phone interviews were conducted with 17 individuals involved in the commercialization of nanotechnology in the United States. Results indicate that while the industry acknowledges uncertainty about the potential risks of nanotechnology and takes significant precaution in ensuring the safety of their products, they do not see nanotechnology as novel or risky. They do not believe that uncertainty over risk ought to delay the further development of nanotechnology. The industry sees itself as the primary agent in ensuring consumer safety and believes that consumers are adequately protected. They are also largely benefit-centric and view product labeling as inefficacious.     

The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology

According to numerous surveys the perceived risk of nanotechnology is low and most people feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. This article provides greater insight into risk perception and concludes that the positive attitude to nanotechnology is based not on knowledge but on hope and fascination. The perceived risk is low because of a lack of vivid and frightening images of possible hazards. If news flashes were to link nanotechnology to concrete hazards or actual harm to people, attitudes might suddenly change. Risk communication faces the problem of dealing with a public at large that has little or no knowledge about the technology. As it takes time and extensive additional research to develop appropriate communication strategies and disseminate them to the relevant institutions, this exercise should be started immediately.     

Awareness on adverse effects of nanotechnology increases negative perception among public: survey study from Singapore

As has been demonstrated by recent societal controversies associated with the introduction of novel technologies, societal acceptance of a technology and its applications is shaped by consumers’ perceived risks and benefits. The research reported here investigates public perceptions of nanotechnology in Singapore, where technological innovation is an established part of the economy, and it might be expected that consumer perceptions of risk are low, and those of benefit are high. The contribution of socio-demographic variables, knowledge level and exposure to risk information in shaping risk perception about nanotechnology applications within different application sectors were analysed. About ~80 % of respondents have some understanding of nanotechnology, 60 % report having heard some negative information, and 39 % perceive nanotechnology as beneficial, while 27.5 % perceive it as risky. Nanotechnology application in food was reported to cause the most concern in the consumers included in the sample. Two-step cluster analysis of the data enabled grouping of respondents into those who expressed ‘less concern’ or ‘more concern’ based on their average scores for concern levels expressed with applications of nanotechnology in different sectors. Profiling of these clusters revealed that, apart from various socio-demographic factors, exposure to risk-related information, rather than awareness in nanotechnology itself, resulted in respondents expressing greater concern about nanotechnology applications. The results provide evidence upon which regulatory agencies and industries can base policies regarding informed risk–benefit communication and management associated with the introduction of commercial applications of nanotechnology.