Scientists worry about some risks more than the public
Source abstract
Abstract
A comparison between two recent national surveys among nanoscientists and the general public in the US shows that, in general, nanoscientists are more optimistic than the public about the potential benefits of nanotechnology. However, for some issues related to the environmental and long-term health impacts of nanotechnology, nanoscientists were significantly more concerned than the public.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Risk Perception and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (16)
Show source-provided references
1. Savadori, L. et al. Risk Analysis 24, 1289–1299 (2004).10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x ↗
2. Kepplinger, H. M., Ehmig, S. C. & Ahlheim, C. Gentechnik im Widerstreit [The Controversies Surrounding Genetic Engineering] (Campus, Frankfurt, 1991).
3. Sjöberg, L. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 1–9 (Winter 1999).
4. Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A & Kastenholz, H. Nature Nanotech. 2, 67 (2007).10.1038/nnano.2007.10 ↗
5. Maynard, A. D. et al. Nature 444, 267–269 (2006).10.1038/444267a ↗
6. RS policy document 35/06 (The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2006); http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=22538
7. Weiss, R. The Washington Post A01 (23 November 2006).
8. Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2007); available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/138/9252007-poll-reveals-public-awareness-ofnanotech-stuck-at-low-level .
9. Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. J. Nanopart. Res. 7, 659–667 (2005).10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
10. Scheufele, D. A. Nano Today 2, 48 (October 2007).
11. Friedman, S. M. & Egolf, B. P IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 24, 5–11 (Winter 2005).
12. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T, Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. Nature Mater. 3, 496 (2004).10.1038/nmat1181 ↗
13. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N. F. Maldera, J. & Turner, S. Nature Nanotech. 1, 153–155 (2006).10.1038/nnano.2006.155 ↗
14. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Cutcome Rates for Surveys (American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lenexa, Kansas, 2006).
15. Dillman, D. A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2nd edn (Wiley, New York, 2007).
16. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P. & Schoeneck, D. J. J. Nanopart. Res. (in the press).