Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments
Source abstract
Abstract
The introduction of different applications of nanotechnology will be informed by expert views regarding which (types of) application will be most societally acceptable. Previous research in Northern Europe has indicated that experts believe that various factors will be influential, predominant among these being public perceptions of benefit, need and consumer concern about contact with nanomaterials. These factors are thought by experts to differentiate societal acceptance and rejection of nanotechnology applications. This research utilises a larger sample of experts (N = 67) drawn from Northern America, Europe, Australasia, India and Singapore to examine differences in expert opinion regarding societal acceptance of different applications of nanotechnology within different technological environments, consumer cultures and regulatory regimes. Perceived risk and consumer concerns regarding contact with nano-particles are thought by all experts to drive rejection, and perceived benefits to influence acceptance, independent of country. Encapsulation and delivery of nutrients in food was thought to be the most likely to raise societal concerns, while targeted drug delivery was thought most likely to be accepted. Lack of differentiation between countries suggests that expert views regarding social acceptance may be homogenous, independent of local contextual factors.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Environmental Education and Sustainability
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. Anderson K, Jackson LA (2005) GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 49(3):263–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00306.x10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00306.x ↗
2. Andree P (2002) The biopolitics of genetically modified organisms in Canada. J Can Stud 37(3):162–19110.3138/jcs.37.3.162 ↗
3. Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith H, Slovic P (1997) Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Soc Sci Q 78(1):167–176
4. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10(4):549–55810.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 ↗
5. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) A small matter of regulation: an international review of nanotechnology regulation. Columbia Sci Technol Law Rev 8:1–32
6. Bruhn CM (1995) Consumer attitudes and market response to irradiated food. J Food Prot 58(2):175–18110.4315/0362-028X-58.2.175 ↗
7. Burgman M, Carr C, Godden L, Gregory R, McBride M, Flander L, Maguire L (2011) Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv Lett 4(2):81–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00165.x10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00165.x ↗
8. Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
9. Carter CA, Gruere GP (2003) Mandatory labeling of genetically modified food: does it really provide consumer choice? AgBioForum 6(1–2):68–70
10. Chapin SL, Chapin LD (1994) Biotech or biowreck? The implications of Jurassic Park and genetic engineering. Bull Sci Technol Soc 14(1):19–2310.1177/027046769401400103 ↗
11. Coles D, Frewer LJ (submitted) Nanotechnology applied to European food production—a review of ethical and regulatory issues
12. David K, Thompson PB (eds) (2011) What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington
13. Dudo A, Choi D-H, Scheufele DA (2011) Food nanotechnology in the new. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56:78–8910.1016/j.appet.2010.11.143 ↗
14. Evans R (2008) The sociology of expertise: the distribution of social fluency. Sociol Compass 2(1):281–298. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00062.x10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00062.x ↗
15. Fife-Schaw C, Rowe G (1996) Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. Risk Anal 16(4):487–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01095.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01095.x ↗
16. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9(2):127–15210.1007/BF00143739 ↗
17. Fischhoff B, Watson SR, Hope C (1984) Defining risk. Policy Sci 17(2):123–13910.1007/BF00146924 ↗
18. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal 13(6):643–64810.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01326.x ↗
19. 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 ↗
20. 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 22:442–45610.1016/j.tifs.2011.05.005 ↗
21. Frewer LJ, Fischer ARH, Wentholt MTA, Marvin HJP, Ooms BW, Coles D, Rowe G (2011b) The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: some lessons learned. Technol Forecast Soc 78(9):1514–1525. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.05.00510.1016/j.techfore.2011.05.005 ↗
22. Frewer LJ, Kleter GA, Brennan M, Coles D, Fischer ARH, Houdebine L-M, Mora C, Millar K, Salter B (2013a) Genetically modified animals from life-science, socio-economic and ethical perspectives: examining issues in an EU policy context. New biotechnol. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2013.03.01010.1016/j.nbt.2013.03.010 ↗
23. Frewer LJ, van der Lans IA, Fischer ARH, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X, van den Berg I, Zimmermann KL (2013b) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol 30:142–15210.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003 ↗
24. Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J, Allum NC (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science 285(5426):384–38710.1126/science.285.5426.384 ↗
25. Gilbert C (2007) Crisis analysis: between normalization and avoidance. J Risk Res 10(7):925–94010.1080/13669870701504731 ↗
26. Gunter VJ, Harris CK (1998) Noisy winter: the DDT controversy in the years before silent spring. Rural Sociol 63(2):179–19810.1111/j.1549-0831.1998.tb00670.x ↗
27. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, van der Lans I, Frewer LJ (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14(5):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x ↗
28. Hall C (2007) GM technology in forestry: lessons from the GM food ‘debate’. Int J Biotechnol 9(5):436–44710.1504/IJBT.2007.014270 ↗
29. Herrick CB (2005) ‘Cultures of GM’: discourses of risk and labelling of GMOs in the UK and EU. Area 37(3):286–294. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00632.x10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00632.x ↗
30. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Science Commun 33(2):167–20010.1177/1075547010380386 ↗
31. Kinkela D (2005) The question of success and environmental ethics: revisiting the DDT controversy from a transnational perspective, 1967–72. Ethics Place Environ 8(2):159–17910.1080/13668790500237062 ↗
32. Knight JG, Holdsworth DK, Mather DW (2008) GM food and neophobia: connecting with the gatekeepers of consumer choice. J Sci Food Agric 88(5):739–74410.1002/jsfa.3168 ↗
33. Kroll G (2001) The “silent springs” of Rachel Carson: mass media and the origins of modern environmentalism. Public Underst Sci 10(4):403–42010.1088/0963-6625/10/4/304 ↗
34. Kuzma J, Priest S (2010) Nanotechnology. Risk, and oversight: learning lessons from related emerging technologies. Risk Anal 30(11):1688–169810.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01471.x ↗
35. Macnaghten P (2011) From bio to nano: learning the lessons, interrogating the comparisons. In: David K, Thompson PB (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 107–123
36. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–24110.1177/0963662506056993 ↗
37. Mehta MD (2004) From biotechnology to nantechnology: what can we learn from earlier technologies? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:34–3910.1177/0270467604263119 ↗
38. Michelson ES (2008) Globalization at the nano frontier: the future of nanotechnology policy in the United States, China, and India. Technol Soc 30(3–4):405–41010.1016/j.techsoc.2008.04.018 ↗
39. Nelson G, Babinard J, Josling T (2001) The domestic and regional regulatory environment. In: Nelson G (ed) Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: economics and politics. Academic Press, San Diego
40. Paarlberg RL (2002) The real threat to GM crops in poor countries: consumer and policy resistance to GM foods in rich countries. Food Policy 27(3):247–250. doi: 10.1016/s0306-9192(02)00014-310.1016/S0306-9192(02)00014-3 ↗
41. Palmberg C, Dernis H, Miguet C (2009) Nanotechnology: an overview based on indicators and statistics. OECD science, technology and industry. Working Papers, 2009/7, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/22314704384410.1787/223147043844 ↗
42. Pollock CG (2001) Silent spring revisited: a 21st-century look at the effect of pesticides on wildlife. J Avian Med Surg 15(1):50–5310.1647/1082-6742(2001)015[0050:SSRACL]2.0.CO;2 ↗
43. Prakash A, Kollman KL (2003) Biopolitics in the EU and the US: a race to the bottom or convergence to the top? Int Stud Q 47(4):617–641. doi: 10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00281.x10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00281.x ↗
44. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–19110.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 ↗
45. Sandler R, Kay WD (2006) The GMO-nanotech (dis)analogy? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(1):57–6210.1177/0270467605284348 ↗
46. Sastry KR, Rashmi HB, Rao NH (2011) Nanotechnology for enhancing food security in India. Food Policy 36(3):391–40010.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.012 ↗
47. Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P (2004) Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal 24(5):1289–129910.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x ↗
48. Shaffer GC (2008) A structural theory of WTO dispute settlement: why institutional choice lies at the center of the GMO case. N Y Univ J Int Law Politics 41:1
49. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
50. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–28510.1126/science.3563507 ↗
51. Sparling D (2011) A framework for translating biotechnology experiences to nanotechnology. In: David K, Thompson PB (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology?: Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 176–188
52. Steenkamp J, Baumgartner H (1998) Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consum Res 25(1):78–90. doi: 10.1086/20952810.1086/209528 ↗
53. te Kulve H, Konrad K, Palavicino CA, Walhout B (2013) Context matters: promises and concerns regarding nanotechnologies for water and food applications. NanoEthics 7(1):17–2710.1007/s11569-013-0168-4 ↗
54. Thompson PB (2011) Nano and Bio: How are they alike? How are they different. In: David K, Thompson PB (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 125–155
55. Van Der Pligt J (1985) Public attitudes to nuclear energy: salience and anxiety. J Environ Psychol 5(1):87–9710.1016/S0272-4944(85)80040-2 ↗
56. Vàzquez-Salat N, Salter B, Smets G, Houdebine LM (2012) The current state of GMO governance: are we ready for GM animals? Biotechnol Adv 30(6):1336–1343. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.00610.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.006 ↗
57. 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 ↗
58. Zilberman D, Schmitz A, Casterline G, Lichtenberg E, Siebert JB (1991) The economics of pesticide use and regulation. Science 253(5019):518–52210.1126/science.253.5019.518 ↗