Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom
Source abstract
Abstract
Emerging nanotechnologies pose a new set of challenges for researchers, governments, industries and citizen organizations that aim to develop effective modes of deliberation and risk communication early in the research and development process. These challenges derive from a number of issues including the wide range of materials and devices covered by the term 'nanotechnology', the many different industrial sectors involved, the fact that many areas of nanotechnology are still at a relatively early stage of development, and uncertainty about the environmental, health and safety impacts of nanomaterials. Public surveys have found that people in the United States and Europe currently view the benefits of nanotechnologies as outweighing their risks although, overall, knowledge about nanotechnology remains very low. However, surveys cannot easily uncover the ways that people will interpret and understand the complexities of nanotechnologies (or any other topic about which they know very little) when asked to deliberate about it in more depth, so new approaches to engaging the public are needed. Here, we report the results of the first comparative United States-United Kingdom public engagement experiment. Based upon four concurrent half-day workshops debating energy and health nanotechnologies we find commonalities that were unexpected given the different risk regulatory histories in the two countries. Participants focused on benefits rather than risks and, in general, had a high regard for science and technology. Application context was much more salient than nation as a source of difference, with energy applications viewed in a substantially more positive light than applications in health and human enhancement in both countries. More subtle differences were present in views about the equitable distribution of benefits, corporate and governmental trustworthiness, the risks to realizing benefits, and in consumerist attitudes.
Source: europepmc · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. A little knowledge. Nature Nanotech. 2, 731 (2007).10.1038/nnano.2007.391 ↗
2. Sims-Bainbridge, W. Public attitudes towards nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 4, 561–570 (2002).10.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
3. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties (Royal Society, 2004).
4. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understand. Sci. 14, 81–90 (2005).10.1177/0963662505048949 ↗
5. Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci. Commun. 27, 240–267 (2005).10.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
6. Hart, P. D. Research Associates, Inc. Report Findings: Based on a National Survey of Adults. Available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/files/HartReport.pdf (Washington, 19 September 2006).
7. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J. & Turner, S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotech. 1, 153–155 (2006).10.1038/nnano.2006.155 ↗
8. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S. & Weick, A. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal. 27, 59–69 (2007).10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
9. Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. See Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, 2004).
10. Pidgeon, N. F. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or “upstream engagement”? Health Risk Soc. 9, 191–210 (2007).10.1080/13698570701306906 ↗
11. Kearnes, M., Macnaughten, P. & Wilsdon, J. Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies (Demos, 2006).
12. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK). Report on Public Dialogue on Nanotechnology for Healthcare. Available at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Nano/RC /ReportPublicDialogueNanotechHealthcare.htm (July, 2008).
13. Kleinman, D. & Powell, M. Report of the Madison Area Citizen Consensus Conference on Nanotechnology. Available at http://www.nanocafes.org/files/consensus_conference_report.pdf (2005).
14. Toumey, C. Rules of engagement. Nature Nanotech. 2, 386–387 (2007).10.1038/nnano.2007.204 ↗
15. Laurent, B. Diverging convergences: Competing meaning of nanotechnology and converging technologies in a local context. Innovation: European J. Soc. Sci. Res. 20, 343–357 (2007).
16. Burri, R. V. & Bellucci, S. Public perception of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 10, 387–391 (2008).10.1007/s11051-007-9286-7 ↗
17. Pidgeon, N. F., Hood, C., Jones, D. K., Turner, B. A. & Gibson, R. Risk perception, in Risk-Analysis, Perception and Management: Report of a Royal Society Study Group Ch. 5 (The Royal Society, 1992).
18. Slovic, P. The Perception of Risk (Earthscan, 2000).
19. Scheufele, D. A. et al. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotech. 2, 732–734 (2007).10.1038/nnano.2007.392 ↗
20. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Affect, values and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental investigation. GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 261. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=968652 (7 March 2007).10.2139/ssrn.968652 ↗
21. Mori-OST. Science in Society: Findings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research (Office of Science and Technology, 2005).
22. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators: Chapter 7, Public Attitudes and Understanding (National Science Foundation, 2006).
23. Rozin, P. Technological stigma: some perspectives from the study of contagion, in Risk, Media and Stigma (eds Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Kunreuther, H.) (Earthscan, 2001).
24. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Science and Society 3rd Report, HL Paper 38 (HMSO, 2000).
25. Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. E. & Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).10.1017/CBO9780511550461 ↗
26. Freudenburg, W. R. Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces 71, 909–932 (1993).10.1093/sf/71.4.909 ↗
27. Einseidel, E. & Goldenburg, L. Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 24, 128–133 (2004).
28. Wynne, B. Risk and social learning: reification to engagement, in Social Theories of Risk (eds Krimsky, S. & Golding, D.) (Praeger, 1992).
29. Cvetkovich, G. T. & Löfstedt, R. E. (eds) Social Trust and the Management of Risk (Earthscan, 1999).
30. Macoubrie, J. Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understand. Sci. 15, 221–241 (2006).10.1177/0963662506056993 ↗