Expert stakeholders’ perception of nanotechnology: risk, benefit, knowledge, and regulation
Source abstract
Abstract
This study is positioned in a multidisciplinary research field addressing questions of innovation, foresight, risk perception, regulation, and the role of stakeholder experts as regards nanomaterials and nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is an innovative scientific field with many potential societal benefits but also high uncertainty about risks to human health and the environment. This study is based on a survey distributed to a sample of 237 expert stakeholders in Sweden working in the field of nanotechnology innovation and regulation. The sample comprises experts in both industry and government organizations. The paper explores the expert’s assessment of benefits, risks, and their views of nanotechnology regulation. The experts generally agreed on the need for further regulation of nanotechnology, although they differed in their support for different regulatory measures. Support for government regulation was increased by greater perceived risk and by ethical concerns, while perceived benefit decreased support for government regulation. If nanotechnology was important for the respondent’s organization of affiliation, support for government regulation decreased. Experts in government organizations were more in favor of stronger government regulation, perceived higher risks, and were more concerned about the ethical implications of nanotechnology than were the industry experts. While previous research has discussed views of experts, as well as comparing the attitudes of the general public with experts, this study contributes to the field by analyzing and identifying differences between industry experts and experts working in government.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Innovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. Anderson B (2007) Hope for nanotechnology: anticipatory knowledge and the governance of affect. Area 39(2):156–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00743.x10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00743.x ↗
2. Apostolakis GE, Pickett SE (1998) Deliberation: integrating analytical results into environmental decisions involving multiple stakeholders. Risk Anal 18(5):621–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00375.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00375.x ↗
3. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–570. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022805510.1023/A:10228055 ↗
4. Beaudrie CE, Kandlikar M, Satterfield T (2013) From cradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: gaps in US regulatory oversight along the nanomaterial life cycle. Environ Sci Technol 47(11):5524–5534. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303591x10.1021/es303591x ↗
5. Bertoldo R, Mays C, Poumadère M, Schneider N, Svendsen C (2016) Great deeds or great risks? Scientists’ social representations of nanotechnology. J Risk Res 19(6):760–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.104250310.1080/13669877.2015.1042503 ↗
6. Besley JC (2010) Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Emerg Health Threat J 3(1):7098. https://doi.org/10.3402/ehtj.v3i0.709810.3402/ehtj.v3i0.7098 ↗
7. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-007-9323-610.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 ↗
8. Boholm M, Arvidsson R (2016) A definition framework for the terms nanomaterial and nanoparticle. NanoEthics 10(1):25–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0249-710.1007/s11569-015-0249-7 ↗
9. Bosso C (2016) Settling into the midstream? Lessons for governance from the decade of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 18(6):163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3451-910.1007/s11051-016-3451-9 ↗
10. 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):546–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250708730410.1177/0963662507087304 ↗
11. Buxton L (2018) Small things are finally in REACH. Chemical Watch: Global Risk and Regulation News. https://chemicalwatch.com/67610/small-things-are-finally-in-reach . Accessed 1 October 2018
12. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(3):385–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250934781510.1177/0963662509347815 ↗
13. Chenel V, Boissy P, Cloarec JP, Patenaude J (2015) Effects of disciplinary cultures of researchers and research trainees on the acceptability of nanocarriers for drug delivery in different contexts of use: a mixed-methods study. J Nanopart Res 17(4):186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-2998-110.1007/s11051-015-2998-1 ↗
14. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading US nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11(7):1573–1585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9671-510.1007/s11051-009-9671-5 ↗
15. Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2011) Public challenges of nanotechnology regulation. Jurimetrics 52:371
16. Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2013) The current status and future direction of nanotechnology regulations: a view from nano-scientists. Rev Policy Res 30(5):488–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.1203610.1111/ropr.12036 ↗
17. Davies SR, Macnaghten P (2010) Narratives of mastery and resistance: lay ethics of nanotechnology. NanoEthics 4(2):141–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0096-510.1007/s11569-010-0096-5 ↗
18. Engeman CD, Baumgartner L, Carr BM, Fish AM, Meyerhofer JD, Satterfield TA, Holden PA, Harthorn BH (2012) Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices. J Nanopart Res 14(3):749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0749-010.1007/s11051-012-0749-0 ↗
19. Fadeel B, Pietroiusti A, Shvedova AA (eds) (2017) Adverse effects of engineered nanomaterials: exposure, toxicology, and impact on human health. Academic Press, London
20. Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14(1):81–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250504894910.1177/0963662505048949 ↗
21. Grieger KD, Baun A, Owen R (2010) Redefining risk research priorities for nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 12(2):383–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9829-110.1007/s11051-009-9829-1 ↗
22. Gupta N, Fischer AR, van der Lans IA, Frewer LJ (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14(5):857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x ↗
23. Gupta N, Fischer AR, George S, Frewer LJ (2013) Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments. J Nanopart Res 15(8):1838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1838-410.1007/s11051-013-1838-4 ↗
24. Gupta N, Fischer AR, Frewer LJ (2015) Ethics, risk and benefits associated with different applications of nanotechnology: a comparison of expert and consumer perceptions of drivers of societal acceptance. Nanoethics 9(2):93–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0222-510.1007/s11569-015-0222-5 ↗
25. Hansen SF (2010) Multicriteria mapping of stakeholder preferences in regulating nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12(6):1959–1970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0006-310.1007/s11051-010-0006-3 ↗
26. Hansen SF, Baun A (2012) European regulation affecting nanomaterials-review of limitations and future recommendations. Dose-Response 10(3). https://doi.org/10.2203/dose-response.10-029.Hansen10.2203/dose-response.10-029.Hansen ↗
27. Hartmanis Å (2013) Nanoteknik för hållbar samhällsutveckling: Slutrapport för Vinnovaprojekt 2012–01866, Strategisk forsknings- och innovationsagenda. SwedNanoTech, Stockholm
28. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2010) Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12(8):2703–2715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0038-810.1007/s11051-010-0038-8 ↗
29. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33(2):167–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554701038038610.1177/1075547010380386 ↗
30. Jenkins-Smith H, Bassett GW (1994) Perceived risk and uncertainty of nuclear waste: differences among science, business, and environmental group members. Risk Anal 14(5):851–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00297.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00297.x ↗
31. Johansson M, Boholm Å (2017) Scientists’ understandings of risk of nanomaterials: disciplinary culture through the ethnographic lens. Nanoethics 11(3):229–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0297-210.1007/s11569-017-0297-2 ↗
32. Kim Y, Corley EA, Scheufele DA (2012) Classifying US nano-scientists: of cautious innovators, regulators, and technology optimists. Sci Public Policy 39(1):30–38. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234212X1311340515782210.3152/030234212X13113405157822 ↗
33. Kim J, Yeo SK, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA (2014) Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public. Risk Anal 34(5):965–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.1214110.1111/risa.12141 ↗
34. Larsson S, Boholm Å (2018) Den svenska allmänhetens inställning till nanoteknik. In: Andersson U, Carlander A, Lindgren E, Oskarson M (eds) Sprickor i fasaden. Göteborgs universitet: SOM-institutet, Gothenburg, pp 293–303
35. Larsson S, Boholm Å, Jansson M (2017) Attitudes towards nanomaterials and nanotechnology among Swedish expert stakeholders: risk, benefit and regulation. GRI Report Series, No. 2017: 2
36. 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):240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700528147410.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
37. Macnaghten P (2010) Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses, and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ Plan A 42(1):23–37. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4134910.1068/a41349 ↗
38. Miller G, Wickson F (2015) Risk analysis of nanomaterials: exposing Nanotechnology's naked emperor. Rev Policy Res 32(4):485–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.1212910.1111/ropr.12129 ↗
39. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2012) Important issues on risk assessment of manufactured nanomaterials. Series on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials, Number 33
40. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2013) Co-operation on risk assessment: Prioritisation of important issues on risk assessment of manufactured nano materials - final report. Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials, Number 38
41. 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):95–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.36210.1038/nnano.2008.362 ↗
42. Powell MC (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists' standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc 9(2):173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369857070130687210.1080/13698570701306872 ↗
43. Priest SH (2011) Nanotechnology and the public: risk perception and risk communication. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton10.1201/b11200 ↗
44. Priest S, Lane T, Greenhalgh T, Hand LJ, Kramer V (2011) Envisioning emerging nanotechnologies: a three-year panel study of South Carolina citizens. Risk Anal 31(11):1718–1733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01705.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01705.x ↗
45. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9092-710.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 ↗
46. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CE, Conti J, Harthorn BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4(11):752–75910.1038/nnano.2009.265 ↗
47. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-210.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
48. 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):732–734. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.39210.1038/nnano.2007.392 ↗
49. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih TJ, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):91–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.36110.1038/nnano.2008.361 ↗
50. Shatkin JA, Abbott LC, Bradley AE, Canady RA, Guidotti T, Kulinowski KM, Löfstedt RE, Louis G, MacDonell M, Maynard AD, Paoli G, Sheremeta L, Walker N, White R, Williams R (2010) Nano risk analysis: advancing the science for nanomaterials risk management. Risk Anal 30(11):1680–1687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01493.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01493.x ↗
51. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.00210.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
52. Silva CL, Jenkins-Smith HC (2007) The precautionary principle in context: US and EU scientists' prescriptions for policy in the face of uncertainty. Soc Sci Q 88(3):640–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00476.x10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00476.x ↗
53. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications, London
54. Su LYF, Cacciatore MA, Brossard D, Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA (2015) Attitudinal gaps: how experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science. Sci Public Policy 43(2):196–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv03110.1093/scipol/scv031 ↗
55. Tachikawa M (2012) Uncertainty of, and stakeholder response to, emerging technologies: food nanotechnology in Japan. ESEP 12(2):113–122. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep0012710.3354/esep00127 ↗
56. van Dijk H, Fischer AR, Marvin HJ, van Trijp HC (2017) Determinants of stakeholders’ attitudes towards a new technology: nanotechnology applications for food, water, energy and medicine. J Risk Res 20(2):277–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.105719810.1080/13669877.2015.1057198 ↗
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):373–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9809-510.1007/s11051-009-9809-5 ↗
58. Wang J, Gerlach JD, Savage N, Cobb GP (2013) Necessity and approach to integrated nanomaterial legislation and governance. Sci Total Environ 442:56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.09.07310.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.09.073 ↗