Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation
Source abstract
Abstract
A survey of American (US) nanotechnology researchers (N = 177) suggests a diversity of views about what areas are most important to the burgeoning field, as well as perceptions about the overall benefits and risks of such research. On average, respondents saw a range of technologies as key and viewed public health and environmental issues as areas where both risks and the need for regulation are greatest. These areas were also where respondents said current regulations were least adequate. Factor analyses of the survey questions suggest that, when considering both risks and regulations, respondents make a distinction between health and environmental risks, and what might be termed “social risks” (e.g., invasion of privacy, use of nanotechnology in weapons, and economic impacts).
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Climate Change Communication and Perception
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–57010.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
2. Barnett J, Carr A, Clift A (2006) Going public: risk, trust, and public understanding of nanotechnologies. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics, and law. Earthscan, London, pp 167–179
3. Berube DM (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst
4. Besley JC, Shanahan J (2005) Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Sci Commun 26(4):347–36710.1177/1075547005275443 ↗
5. Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):221–23910.1177/1075547005281473 ↗
6. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–40510.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
7. Doble J (1995) Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Underst Sci 4(1):95–11810.1088/0963-6625/4/2/001 ↗
8. Einsiedel EF, Goldenberg L (2006) Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics, and law. Earthscan, London, pp 213–221
9. Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, Hampel J et al (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal 24(1):185–19410.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x ↗
10. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14(1):81–9010.1177/0963662505048949 ↗
11. Georghiou L (1996) The UK technology foresight programme. Futures 28(4):359–37710.1016/0016-3287(96)00013-4 ↗
12. Gorss JB, Lewenstein BV (2005) The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association
13. Gunter B, Kinderlerer J, Beyleveld D (1999) The media and public understanding of biotechnology: a survey of scientists and journalists. Sci Commun 20(4):373–39410.1177/1075547099020004002 ↗
14. Joss S, Belluci S (eds) (2002) Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. Athenaeum Press/Centre for the Study of Democracy, Gateshead
15. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–26710.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
16. Macnaugthen P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268–29110.1177/1075547005281531 ↗
17. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–24110.1177/0963662506056993 ↗
18. Mills K (2006) Nanotechnologies and society in the USA. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics, and law. Earthscan, London, pp 74–91
19. Nisbet MC, Lewenstein BV (2002) Biotechnology and the American media: the policy process and the elite press, 1970–1999. Sci Commun 23(4):359–39110.1177/107554700202300401 ↗
20. Priest S (2006) The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 8:563–56810.1007/s11051-005-9060-7 ↗
21. Priest SH, Gillespie AW (2000) Seeds of discontent: expert opinion, mass media messages, and the public image of agricultural biotechnology. Sci Eng Ethics 6(4):529–53910.1007/s11948-000-0012-4 ↗
22. Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal 23(4):751–76610.1111/1539-6924.00353 ↗
23. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–65710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
24. Shanahan J, Scheufele D, Lee E (2001) The polls-trends: attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. Public Opin Q 65(2):267–28110.1086/322201 ↗
25. Siegriest M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wick A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perceptions of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
26. Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Sci Commun 27(2):175–19910.1177/1075547005281520 ↗
27. Toumey C (2006) Science and democracy. Nature Nanotechnol 1(1):6–710.1038/nnano.2006.71 ↗