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.     

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.     

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.     

Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks,benefits and trust

We report data from the first representative national phone survey of Americans' perceptions about nanotechnology (N =1536). Public opinion about nanotechnology is in its infancy, and knowledge about it is quite limited. Yet, Americans' initial reaction to nanotechnology is thus far generally positive, probably rooted in a generally positive view of science overall. Survey respondents expected benefits of nanotechnology to be more prevalent than risks, and they reported feeling hopeful about nanotechnology rather than worried. Their most preferred potential benefit of nanotechnology is new and better ways to detect and treat human diseases, and they identified losing personal privacy to tiny new surveillance devices as the most important potential risk to avoid. The most discouraging aspect to the data is respondents' lack of trust in business leaders to minimize nanotechnology risks to human health. Overall, these data indicate that while Americans do not necessarily presume benefits and the absence of risks, their outlook is much more positive than not.     

Label it or ban it? Public perceptions of nano-food labels and propositions for banning nano-food applications

The future of nano-food largely hinges on public perceptions and willingness to accept this novel technology. The present study utilizes the scientific literacy model and psychometric paradigm as the key theoretical frameworks to examine the factors influencing public support for labeling and banning of nano-food in Singapore. Using data collected from a nationally representative survey of 1001 respondents, the findings demonstrated that attitudes toward technology, preference for natural product, science knowledge, and risk perception were found to substantially affect public support for both labeling and banning of nano-food. Conversely, attention to food safety news on traditional media and attention to nano-news on new media were only associated with public support for labeling of nano-food. Similarly, benefit perception was only significantly associated with public support for banning of nano-food. Theoretically, these findings support the growing body of literature that argues for the significant role played by predispositions, media use, science knowledge, and risk and benefit perceptions on attitude formation toward nano-food. It serves as the pioneering piece to address the aspect of banning in the field of nano-food. Practically, insights drawn from this study could aid relevant stakeholders in enlisting effecting strategies to convey the benefits of nano-food while mitigating the risk perceptions among the public.     

Selective perception of novel science: how definitions affect information processing about nanotechnology

This study examines how familiarity with an issue—nanotechnology—moderates the effect of exposure to science information on how people process mediated messages about a complex issue. In an online experiment, we provide a nationally representative sample three definitions of nanotechnology (technical, technical applications, and technical risk/benefit definitions). We then ask them to read an article about the topic. We find significant interactions between perceived nano-familiarity and the definition received in terms of how respondents perceive favorable information conveyed in the stimulus. People less familiar with nanotechnology were more significantly affected by the type of definition they received.     

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 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 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.     

Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management,sustainable innovation and risk governance

The significant uncertainties associated with the (eco)toxicological risks of engineered nanomaterials pose challenges to the development of nano-enabled products toward greatest possible societal benefit. This paper argues for the use of risk governance approaches to manage nanotechnology risks and sustainability, and considers the links between these concepts. Further, seven risk assessment and management criteria relevant to risk governance are defined: (a) life cycle thinking, (b) triple bottom line, (c) inclusion of stakeholders, (d) risk management, (e) benefit–risk assessment, (f) consideration of uncertainty, and (g) adaptive response. These criteria are used to compare five well-developed nanotechnology frameworks: International Risk Governance Council framework, Comprehensive Environmental Assessment, Streaming Life Cycle Risk Assessment, Certifiable Nanospecific Risk Management and Monitoring System and LICARA NanoSCAN. A Sustainable Nanotechnology Decision Support System (SUNDS) is proposed to better address current nanotechnology risk assessment and management needs, and makes. Stakeholder needs were solicited for further SUNDS enhancement through a stakeholder workshop that included representatives from regulatory, industry and insurance sectors. Workshop participants expressed the need for the wider adoption of sustainability assessment methods and tools for designing greener nanomaterials.     

Nobel prizes in science

Harriet Zuckerman is an associate professor of sociology at Columbia University. Her Ph.D. dissertation on Nobel Laureates? was finished in 1965, and before and after that date she has interviewed most of those who live in the United States. They numbered 77 in 1976, out of 313 awards worldwide since they were started in 1901, and when I first saw the book I guessed that its sales might be limited to these 77, with perhaps half as many again bought overseas. After reading it, however, I hope I was wrong; while many people belonging to a small group may be amused to read about the sociology of that group, the book certainly has a wider interest. I think it is worth reviewing in Contemporary Physics chiefly because of the comments that it contains on the system of rewards in science, and the effects that they have on the scientific community. The author asks “are Nobel prizes good for science?” and the same might be asked about the fellowship of the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy, knighthoods and all other awards. Are they all good for science!     

Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology

Data from 3909 respondents to an Internet survey questionnaire provide the first insights into public perceptions of nanotechnology. Quantitative analysis of statistics about agreement and disagreement with two statements, one positive and the other negative, reveals high levels of enthusiasm for the potential benefits of nanotechnology and little concern about possible dangers. The respondents mentally connect nanotechnology with the space program, nuclear power, and cloning research, but rate it more favorably. In contrast, they do not associate nanotechnology with pseudoscience, despite its imaginative exploitation by science fiction writers. Qualitative analysis of written comments from 598 respondents indicates that many ideas about the value of nanotechnology have entered popular culture, and it provides material for an additional 108 questionnaire items that can be used in future surveys on the topic. The findings of this exploratory study can serve as benchmarks against which to compare results of future research on the evolving status of nanotechnology in society.     

From Vision to the Implementation of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative

All natural and living systems are governed by atomic and molecular behavior at the nanoscale. Research is now seeking systematic approaches to create revolutionary new products and technologies by control of matter at the same scale. Fundamental discoveries and potential implications of nanotechnology to wealth, health and peace have captured the imagination of scientists, industry and government experts. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has become a top national priority in science and technology in U.S. for fiscal year 2001, with a Federal nanotechnology investment portfolio of $422 million. Nanotechnology is expected to have a profound impact on our economy and society in the earlier 21st century.The vision, research and development strategy, and timeline of NNI are presented by using several recent scientific discoveries and results from industry.     

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.     

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.     

Making science in a fractal landscape.

There were times when any progress in science was associated with a social benefit. Public support of science was growing continuously without many questions being asked. These times have gone and the public asks now what science is good for and scientists are not yet well prepared to reply. A new social contract between scientists and society should be elaborated based on knowledge, tolerance and transparency.     

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.     

Measuring science–technology interactions using patent citations and author-inventor links: an exploration analysis from Chinese nanotechnology

This article contributes to the growing study on the interactions between science and technology with China’s evidence in the field of nanotechnology, based on the database of United States Patent and Trademark Office. The analysis is focused during the period of 1991–2008, a rapid increasing period for the development of nanotechnology. Using the non-patent references cited by patents, we first investigate the science–technology connections in the context of Chinese nanotechnology, especially in institutional sectors and its application fields. Those patents, produced by academic researchers and directed towards basic scientific knowledge, generally cite more scientific references with a higher proportion of self-citations. It is interesting to find that patents contributed by collaborations between public organizations and corporations seldom contain scientific references. Following an interesting path on matching the data of publications and patents, we establish the author-inventor links in this emerging field. Author-inventors, who are co-active in publishing and patenting, are at the very top of the most prolific and highly cited researchers. Finally, we employ social network analysis to explore the characteristics of scientific and technological networks generated by co-authorship and co-invention data, to investigate the position and the role of patenting–publishing scientists in these research networks.     

Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks

Over the last decade social scientific researchers have examined how the public perceives risks associated with nanotechnology. The body of literature that has emerged has been methodologically diverse. The findings have confirmed that some publics perceive nanotechnology as riskier than others, experts feel nanotechnology is less risky than the public does, and despite risks the public is optimistic about nanotechnology development. However, the extant literature on nanotechnology and risk suffers from sometimes widely divergent findings and has failed to provide a detailed picture of how the public actually feels about nanotechnology risks when compared to other risks. This study addresses the deficiencies in the literature by providing a comparative approach to gauging nanotechnology risks. The findings show that the public does not fear nanotechnology compared to other risks. Out of 24 risks presented to the participants, nanotechnology ranked 19th in terms of overall risk and 20th in terms of “high risk.”