Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
Nanotechnology can be described as an emerging technology and, as has been the case with other emerging technologies such as genetic modification, different socio-psychological factors will potentially influence societal responses to its development and application. These factors will play an important role in how nanotechnology is developed and commercialised. This article aims to identify expert opinion on factors influencing societal response to applications of nanotechnology. Structured interviews with experts on nanotechnology from North West Europe were conducted using repertory grid methodology in conjunction with generalized Procrustes analysis to examine the psychological constructs underlying societal uptake of 15 key applications of nanotechnology drawn from different areas (e.g. medicine, agriculture and environment, chemical, food, military, sports, and cosmetics). Based on expert judgement, the main factors influencing societal response to different applications of nanotechnology will be the extent to which applications are perceived to be beneficial, useful, and necessary, and how 'real' and physically close to the end-user these applications are perceived to be by the public. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cognitive and psychological constructs research · Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification · Behavioral Health and Interventions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (63)
Show source-provided references
1. Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith HC (1993) Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Anal 13:425–43910.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00743.x ↗
2. Bauer MW (2005) Distinguishing red and green biotechnology: cultivation effects of the elite press. Int J Public Opin Res 17(1):63–8910.1093/ijpor/edh057 ↗
3. Berube DM, Cummings CL, Cacciatore M, Scheufele D, Kalin J (2011) Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: expert Delphi survey. Nanotoxicology 5(2):236–243. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2010.52163310.3109/17435390.2010.521633 ↗
4. Besley J, Kramer V, Priest (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanoparticle Res 10(4):549–55810.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 ↗
5. Blok A, Jensen M, Kaltoft P (2008) Social identities and risk: expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Underst Sci 17:189–20910.1177/0963662506070176 ↗
6. 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 ↗
7. Burri RV, Bellucci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanaopart Res 10:387–39110.1007/s11051-007-9286-7 ↗
8. 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 ↗
9. Conti J, Satterfield T, Harthorn BH (2011) Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent U.S. nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal 31(11):1734–174810.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x ↗
10. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1573–1585. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9671-510.1007/s11051-009-9671-5 ↗
11. Crow MM, Sarewitz D (2001) Nanotechnology and societal transformation. American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC
12. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz C (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive repository. Risk Anal 13:643–64810.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01326.x ↗
13. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R (1996) What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal 16(4):473–48510.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.x ↗
14. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci Technol Hum Values 22(1):98–12410.1177/016224399702200105 ↗
15. Frewer LJ, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181–119310.1016/j.fct.2004.02.002 ↗
16. Frewer LJ, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, Rowe G, Siegrist M, Vereijken C (2011a) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22(8):442–45610.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005 ↗
17. Frewer LJ, Wentholt MTA, Marvin HJP, Ooms BW, Fischer ARH, Coles D, Rowe G (2011b) The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: some lessons learned. Technol Forecast Soc. doi: 10.10/16/j.techfore.2011.05.005
18. Gaskell G, Bauer M, Durant J, Allum N (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285(5426):384–38710.1126/science.285.5426.384 ↗
19. 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 ↗
20. Gower J (1975) Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40(1):33–5110.1007/BF02291478 ↗
21. Grice JW (2002) Idiogrid: software for the management and analysis of repertory grids. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 34:338–34110.3758/BF03195461 ↗
22. Grice JW, Assad KK (2009) Generalized procrustes analysis: a tool for exploring aggregates and persons. Appl Multivar Res 13(1):93–11210.22329/amr.v13i1.2836 ↗
23. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2011) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci. doi: 10.1177/0963662510392485
24. Hagemann K, Scholderer J (2009) Hot potato: expert-consumer differences in the perception of a second-generation novel food. Risk Anal 29(7):1041–105510.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01229.x ↗
25. Henson S, Annou M, Cranfield J, Ryks J (2008) Understanding consumer attitudes toward food technologies in Canada. Risk Anal 28(6):1601–161710.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01123.x ↗
26. Ho SS, Dietram A, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33:167–200. doi: 10.1177/107554701038038610.1177/1075547010380386 ↗
27. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Expert and lay judgements of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12:215–23210.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00669.x ↗
28. 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 ↗
29. Lewith GT, Chan J (2002) An exploratory qualitative study to investigate how patients evaluate complementary and conventional medicine. Complement Ther Med 10(2):69–7710.1054/ctim.2002.0524 ↗
30. Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2(1):43–6010.1007/s11569-008-0028-9 ↗
31. Messina F, Saba A, Turrini A, Raats M (2008) Older people’s perceptions towards conventional and functional yoghurts through the repertory grid method: a cross-country study. Br Food J 110(8):790–80410.1108/00070700810893322 ↗
32. Mireaux M, Cox DN, Cotton A, Evans G (2007) An adaptation of repertory grid methodology to evaluate Australian consumers’ perceptions of food products produced by novel technologies. Food Qual Prefer 18(6):834–84810.1016/j.foodqual.2007.01.012 ↗
33. 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 ↗
34. Priest S (2006) The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanoparticle Res 8(5):563–56810.1007/s11051-005-9060-7 ↗
35. Priest SH, Greenhalgh T (2011) Nanotechnology as an experiment in democracy: How do citizens form opinions about technology and policy? J Nanoparticle Res 13:1521–1531. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0229-y10.1007/s11051-011-0229-y ↗
36. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 12(1):11–2010.1007/s11051-009-9789-5 ↗
37. Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 5(3–4):181–18910.1023/A:1025548512438 ↗
38. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanoparticle Res 7(1):1–1310.1007/s11051-004-2336-5 ↗
39. Ronteltap A, Fischer A, Tobi H (2011) Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies–converging societal response research? J Nanoparticle Res 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0473-110.1007/s11051-011-0473-1 ↗
40. Rowe G, Lambert N, Bowling A, Ebrahim S, Wakeling I, Thomson R (2005) Assessing patients’ preferences for treatments for angina using a modified repertory grid method. Soc Sci Med 60(11):2585–259510.1016/j.socscimed.2004.10.019 ↗
41. Russell CG, Cox DN (2004) Understanding middle-aged consumers’ perceptions of meat using repertory grid methodology. Food Qual Prefer 15(4):317–32910.1016/S0950-3293(03)00073-9 ↗
42. Salerno M, Landoni P, Verganti R (2008) Designing foresight studies for nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) future developments. Technol Forecast Soc 75(8):1202–122310.1016/j.techfore.2007.11.011 ↗
43. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4(11):752–75810.1038/nnano.2009.265 ↗
44. Schaffalitzky E, Ni Mhurchadha S, Gallagher P, Hofkamp S, MacLachlan M, Wegener ST (2009) Identifying the values and preferences of prosthetic users: a case study series using the repertory grid technique. Prosthet Orthot Int 33(2):157–16610.1080/03093640902855571 ↗
45. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
46. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2(12):732–73410.1038/nnano.2007.392 ↗
47. Sheetz T, Vidal J, Pearson TD, Lozano K (2005) Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technol Soc 27(3):329–34510.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.010 ↗
48. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007a) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459–46610.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
49. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007b) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
50. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C (2008) Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51(2):283–29010.1016/j.appet.2008.02.020 ↗
51. Sjöberg L (1999) Risk perception by the public and by experts: a dilemma in risk management. Res Hum Ecol 6(2):1–9
52. Stampfli N, Siegrist M, Kastenholz H (2010) Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis. J Risk Res 13(3):353–36510.1080/13669870903233303 ↗
53. Tio J, LaCaze A, Cottrell WN (2007) Ascertaining consumer perspectives of medication information sources using a modified repertory grid technique. Pharm World Sci 29(2):73–8010.1007/s11096-006-9076-9 ↗
54. van de Kerkhof M, Cuppen E, Hisschemöller M (2009) The repertory grid to unfold conflicting positions: the case of a stakeholder dialogue on prospects for hydrogen. Technol Forecast Soc 76(3):422–43210.1016/j.techfore.2008.07.004 ↗
55. van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P (2005) Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual Prefer 16(3):181–20110.1016/j.foodqual.2004.05.012 ↗
56. van Kleef E, Fischer ARH, Khan M, Frewer LJ (2010) Risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phone and base station technology in Bangladesh. Risk Anal 30:1002–101510.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01386.x ↗
57. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about god, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12(2):373–38110.1007/s11051-009-9809-5 ↗
58. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20(2):195–20610.1177/0963662509350139 ↗
59. Wakeling IN, Raats MM, MacFie HJH (1992) A comparison of consensus tests for generalised procrustes analysis. J Sens Stud 7:91–9610.1111/j.1745-459X.1992.tb00526.x ↗
60. Webster K, Jardine C, Cash SB, McMullen L (2010) Risk ranking: investigating expert and public differences in evaluating food safety hazards. J Food Prot 73(10):1875–188510.4315/0362-028X-73.10.1875 ↗
61. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter EA, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB (2000) The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a vovel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Appl Anim Behav Sci 67:193–21510.1016/S0168-1591(99)00093-3 ↗
62. Wright D, Androuchko L (1996) Telemedicine and developing countries. J Telemed Telecare 2:63–7010.1177/1357633X9600200201 ↗
63. Yawson RM, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33(4):299–32210.1007/s10603-010-9134-5 ↗