The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature
Source abstract
Abstract
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.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Environmental Education and Sustainability · Risk Perception and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Agresti A (1996) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York
2. Ameisen J et al (2007) Ethical issues raised by nanosciences, nanotechnologies and health. Opinion nr. 96, National Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences
3. Bainbridge W (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561–57010.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
4. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):546–55810.1177/0963662507087304 ↗
5. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risk, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–40510.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
6. Corral-Verdugo V, Carrus G, Bonnes M, Moser G, Sinha J (2008) Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in water conservation. Toward a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environ Behav 40:703–72510.1177/0013916507308786 ↗
7. European Commission (2005) Some figures about nanotechnology R&D in Europe and beyond. http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology. Accessed 14 October
8. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, London
9. Heelas P, Woodhead L (2005) The spiritual revolution: why religion is giving way to spirituality. Blackwell, Oxford
10. Kahan D, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–9010.1038/nnano.2008.341 ↗
11. Lee C, Scheufele D, Lewenstein B (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci Commun 27:240–26710.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
12. Luhmann N (1989) Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduction Sozialer Complexität [Trust: a mechanism for the reduction of social complexity]. Enke, Stuttgart
13. Norris P, Inglehart R (2004) Sacred and secular: religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge10.1017/CBO9780511791017 ↗
14. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):95–9810.1038/nnano.2008.362 ↗
15. Roco M, Bainbridge W (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kluwer, Dordrecht
16. Rothstein H, Huber M, Gaskell G (2006) A theory of risk colonization: the spiralling regulatory logics of societal and institutional risk. Econ Soc 35(1):91–11210.1080/03085140500465865 ↗
17. Scheufele D, Lewenstein B (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
18. Scheufele D, Corley E, Shih T, Dalrymple K, Ho S (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):91–9410.1038/nnano.2008.361 ↗
19. Sjöberg L (2000a) Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J Risk Res 3:353–36710.1080/13669870050132568 ↗
20. Sjöberg L (2000b) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–1110.1111/0272-4332.00001 ↗
21. Sjöberg L (2003) Distal factors in risk perception. J Risk Res 6(3):187–21110.1080/1366987032000088847 ↗
22. Slovic P, Peters E (1998) The importance of worldviews in risk perception. Risk Decis Policy 3(2):165–17010.1080/135753098348275 ↗
23. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–113110.1126/science.185.4157.1124 ↗
24. Waldron A, Spencer D, Batt C (2006) The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 8:569–57510.1007/s11051-006-9112-7 ↗
25. Wolf C (2008) How secularized is Germany? Cohort and comparative perspectives. Soc Compass 55(2):111–12610.1177/0037768608089733 ↗