Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
This article presents early results from an opinion formation study based on a 76-member panel of U.S. citizens, with comparison data from a group of 177 nanotechnology experts. While initially similar to the expert group in terms of their perceptions of the risks, benefits, and need for regulation characterizing several forms of nanotechnology, the first follow-up survey indicates that the panel is beginning to diverge from the experts, particularly with respect to perceptions of the levels of various "societal" risks that nanotechnology might present. The data suggest that responding to public concerns may involve more than attention to physical risks in areas such as health and environment; concerns about other forms of risk actually appear more salient.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Besley J, Kramer V, Priest S (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risk, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–55810.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 ↗
2. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–40510.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
3. Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4, Autumn):51–5810.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x ↗
4. Friedman SN, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24(4, Winter):5–1110.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 ↗
5. Friedman SN, Egolf BP (2008) Mass media coverage of nanotechnology: indicators about environmental and health risks and regulatory issues. Data provided by the authors and presented at NBER Conference on Emerging Industries: Nanotechnology and NanoIndicators, Cambridge, MA
6. Gorss J, Lewenstein BV (2005) The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004, presented to the International Communication Association, New York
7. Hart Research Associates, Inc (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. A report of findings conducted on behalf of: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7040/final-synbioreport.pdf. Accessed May 2009
8. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (2005) The social contours of risk, vol I: publics, risk communication & the social amplification of risk. Earthscan, Sterling, VA
9. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown H, Emel J, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–18710.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x ↗
10. Katz E, Lazarsfeld PF (1955) Personal influence. The Free Press, New York
11. Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson B, Gaudet H (1944) The people’s choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press, New York
12. McCombs ME, Shaw DL (1993) The evolution of agenda-setting research: twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. J Commun 43(2):58–6710.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01262.x ↗
13. National Science Foundation (2008) Science and engineering indicators 2008. National Science Foundation, Washington
14. Paul B, Salwen MB, Dupagne M (2000) The third-person effect: a meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Commun Soc 3(1):57–8510.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04 ↗
15. Powell MC (2007) New risk or old risk, high risk or low risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc 9:173–19010.1080/13698570701306872 ↗
16. Priest S (2008) North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies. J Risk Res 11:877–88910.1080/13669870802056904 ↗
17. Priest S, Fussell H (2006) Nanotechnology: constructing the public and public constructions. Paper presented at annual meeting, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
18. Priest S, Kramer V (2008) Making sense of emerging nanotechnologies: how ordinary people form impressions of new technology. Paper presented at annual meeting, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
19. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih T, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the US. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):91–9410.1038/nnano.2008.361 ↗
20. Service RF (2008) Can high-speed tests sort out which nanomaterials are safe? Science 321:1036–103710.1126/science.321.5892.1036 ↗
21. Shatkin J (2008) Nanotechnology: health and environmental risks. CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), Boca Rotaon, FL10.1201/9781420053647 ↗
22. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor D (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):1–1210.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x ↗
23. Stephens LF (2004) News narratives about nano: How journalist and the news media are framing nanoscience and nanotechnology initiatives and issues. Paper presented at imaging and imagining nanoscience & engineering conference, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, March 7
24. Tichenor PJ, Donohue GA, Olien CN (1980) Community conflict and the press. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills
25. Tuchman G (1978) Making news: a study in the construction of reality. Free Press, New York