From risk perception to risk governance in nanotechnology: a multi-stakeholder study
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Nanotechnology is widely used in several industrial and consumer sectors and has the potential to grow further and expand globally. An exploration of stakeholder (SH)’s perceptions is essential to ensuring that robust risk governance processes are in place for nanotechnology and nano-related products. In response, numerous studies have been conducted to investigate SH’s perceptions of nanotechnology and nano-related products over the past 15 years. To build on this work and to capture current perceptions across a wide panel of SHs, we conducted a multi-national and cross-sectoral SH study of awareness, perceptions and opinions regarding the use and potential impact on society and the environment of nanomaterials (NMs) and nano-related products, and SH’s expectations about risk governance. The study was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative inquiries and targeted more than 3000 SHs across different sectors in a total of 15 countries. Results showed a tendency towards more convergence of opinions amongst all the relevant SHs and the public respondents than in past studies. There was consensus on the crucial importance of having unbiased, scientific and trustable information regarding the potential impacts of NMs and nano-related products on the environment, health and safety. SHs were interested in having more internationally harmonised and robust regulation for NMs and nano-related products; improved scientific evidence on nanomaterial hazards, exposures and effects; as well as specific guidance on the safe use of NMs. Overall, this work provides an updated scenario of SHs’ perceptions regarding nanotechnology and nano-related products, underscoring the importance of including SH needs in effective risk governance strategies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Innovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems · Biotechnology and Related Fields
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. Adler M, Ziglio E (1996) Gazing into the Oracle: the Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. Jessica Kingsley, London
2. Benighaus, C. and L. Benighaus (2012). Moderation, Gesprächsaufbau und Dynamik in Fokusgruppen. Fokusgruppen in der empirischen Sozialwissenschaft. M. Schulz, B. Mack and O. Renn. Berlin, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: 111–132.10.1007/978-3-531-19397-7_6 ↗
3. Besley J (2010) Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Emerging Health Threats Journal 3(1):709810.3402/ehtj.v3i0.7098 ↗
4. Brown J, Fatehi L, Kuzma J (2015) Altruism and skepticism in public attitudes toward food nanotechnologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 17(3):1–3110.1007/s11051-015-2926-4 ↗
5. Bullis, K. (2006). “Nano” safety recall: a product touted as “nano” has hospitalized six German consumers, prompting more warnings over the dangers of nanomaterials. MIT Technology Review.
6. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(3):385–40410.1177/0963662509347815 ↗
7. Capon A, Gillespie J, Rolfe M, Smith W (2015) Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes. BMC Public Health 15(1):42410.1186/s12889-015-1795-1 ↗
8. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4):395–40510.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
9. Cooper, M. D. (2018). The safety culture construct: theory and practice. Safety cultures, safety models: taking stock and moving forward. C. Gilbert, B. Journe, H. Laroche and C. Bieder. Cham, Springer International Publishing: 47–61.
10. Dalkey NC (1969) The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica, CA, Rand
11. Dewar JS, Friel JA (2001) Delphi method. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin
12. Dijkstra AM, Critchley CR (2016) Nanotechnology in Dutch science cafés: public risk perceptions contextualised. Public Understanding of Science 25(1):71–8710.1177/0963662514528080 ↗
13. Einsiedel E (2005) In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnologies among Canadian and US Publics. Journal of Nanotechnology Online 1
14. Fatkhutdinova LM, Khaliullin TO, Vasil’yeva OL, Zalyalov RR, Mustafin IG, Kisin ER, Birch ME, Yanamala N, Shvedova AA (2016) Fibrosis biomarkers in workers exposed to MWCNTs. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 299:125–13110.1016/j.taap.2016.02.016 ↗
15. Ferdinand, J.-P., M. Gossen, G. Scholl and B. Holzhauer (2013). Nanoview—Einflussfaktoren auf die Wahrnehmung der Nanotechnologien und zielgruppenspezifische Risikokommunikationsstrategien, Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung.
16. Ganesh Pillai R, Bezbaruah AN (2017) Perceptions and attitude effects on nanotechnology acceptance: an exploratory framework. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 19(2):4110.1007/s11051-016-3733-2 ↗
17. Gaskell G, Eyck TT, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science 14(1):81–9010.1177/0963662505048949 ↗
18. Grobe, A., O. Renn and A. Jaeger (2008). Risk governance of nanotechnology applications in food and cosmetics. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC).
19. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, 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):93–10810.1007/s11569-015-0222-5 ↗
20. Henseling C, Hahn T, Nolting K (2006) Die Fokusgruppen-Methode als Instrument in der Umwelt- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Berlin, Institute for Futures Studies and Technology Assessment 48
21. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2017) Introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework. Lausanne, Switzerland, IRGC 50
22. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2008) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology 4:8710.1038/nnano.2008.341 ↗
23. Kirkegaard, M. L., P. Kines and K. A. Jensen (2019). Safety culture, risk perception and handling of nanomaterial risks in academia and industry—case studies. Annals of Work Exposures and Health (Submitted).
24. Kolosnjaj-Tabi J, Just J, Hartman KB, Laoudi Y, Boudjemaa S, Alloyeau D, Szwarc H, Wilson LJ, Moussa F (2015) Anthropogenic carbon nanotubes found in the airways of Parisian children. EBioMedicine 2(11):1697–170410.1016/j.ebiom.2015.10.012 ↗
25. Krueger RA, Casey MA (2008) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, Thousand Oaks
26. Larsson S, Jansson M, Boholm Å (2019) Expert stakeholders’ perception of nanotechnology: risk, benefit, knowledge, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 21(3):5710.1007/s11051-019-4498-1 ↗
27. Linstone HA (1998) Multiple perspectives revisited. Orlando, CA, USA, IAMOT
28. Linstone, H. A. and M. Turroff (2002). The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Published online: https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf, ©2002 Murray Turoff and Harold A. Linstone
29. Macnaghten P (2016) Responsible innovation and the reshaping of existing technological trajectories: the hard case of genetically modified crops. Journal of Responsible Innovation 3(3):282–28910.1080/23299460.2016.1255700 ↗
30. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Zabeo A, Hristozov D, Mullins M, Murphy F, Linkov I, Marcomini A (2017) Comparing mental models of prospective users of the sustainable nanotechnology decision support system. Environment Systems and Decisions 37(4):465–483
31. OECD (2018). Investigating the different types of risk assessments of manufactured nanomaterials: identifying tools available for risk management measures and uncertainties driving nano-specific data needs. Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. No. 88.
32. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health 42(5):533–54410.1007/s10488-013-0528-y ↗
33. Parisi C, Vigani M, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2015) Agricultural nanotechnologies: what are the current possibilities? Nano Today 10(2):124–12710.1016/j.nantod.2014.09.009 ↗
34. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 12(1):11–2010.1007/s11051-009-9789-5 ↗
35. Priest SH, Greenhalgh T (2011) Nanotechnology as an experiment in democracy: how do citizens form opinions about technology and policy? Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13(4):1521–153110.1007/s11051-011-0229-y ↗
36. Prosafe (2017). The ProSafe White Paper: Towards a more effective and efficient governance and regulation of nanomaterials: 1–46.
37. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology 4:75210.1038/nnano.2009.265 ↗
38. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7(6):659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
39. 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 ↗
40. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007b) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis 27(1):59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
41. 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 ↗
42. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4(6):561–57010.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
43. System, E. S. (2011). Eurostat census. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ec.europa.eu_CensusHub2_query.do-3Fstep-3DselectHyperCube-26qhc-3Dfalse&d=DwIGaQ&c=vh6FgFnduejNhPPD0fl_yRaSfZy8CWbWnIf4XJhSqx8&r=F8jRe85hu55p0hrOAPRTlXqBWmdi_A5USzQxvJXlzL2tJvyEWDgfrhKJOIzcdlym&m=CCw_d0AT2RcqnJlaVrmnHXf8WRyuLsaHS94Kh9HCToo&s=-n7cHuKBIkmru_FI2WCLE4G9oKRPghKIQOna0tb1uUQ&e= .
44. Tait J (2001) More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops. Journal of Risk Research 4(2):175–18910.1080/13669870010027640 ↗
45. The Nanodatabase (2019) The nanodatabase. The Ecological Council, Danish Consumer Council, DTU Environment
46. The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. The Royal Society, Plymouth, UK, pp 1–116
47. 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. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 12(2):373–38110.1007/s11051-009-9809-5 ↗
48. Warheit, D. B. (2018). Hazard and risk assessment strategies for nanoparticle exposures: how far have we come in the past 10 years? F1000Research 7: 376.
49. Woodrow Wilson Institute. (2009). Consumer products inventory. The project on emerging nanotechnologies.
50. Zhao L, Zhu Y, Chen Z, Xu H, Zhou J, Tang S, Xu Z, Kong F, Li X, Zhang Y, Li X, Zhang J, Jia G (2018) Cardiopulmonary effects induced by occupational exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology 12(2):169–18410.1080/17435390.2018.1425502 ↗