Nanotechnology in the public eye: the case of Iran, as a developing country
Source abstract
Abstract
Using survey data, public awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology are examined in Iran (N = 759). Iran is a developing country with a national nanotechnology action plan for a ten year period starting from 2003 and has been active in the field of research and development of nanotechnology meanwhile. First, the results show that majority of people are still not familiar with nanotechnology and perceived risks posed by this technology are not considered to be a lot and most people feel its benefits outweigh the risks. The emotions toward this technology are of a hopeful and positive nature and this technology is looked upon favorably in Iran. In particular, our results reveals that although the level of trust is high specially in scientists to communicate the risks with the public, there are a great number who just have some trust not quite a lot of it. Knowing that it is a hard and time-consuming effort to manage a nation’s view on nanotechnology, extensive research as well as collaboration with other countries is needed to effectively communicate the risks in time.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanotechnology research and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (46)
Show source-provided references
1. Balasubramanyam A, Sialaja N, Mahboob M, Rahman MF (2009) Evaluation of genotoxic effects of oral exposure to aluminium oxide nanoparticles in rat bone marrow. Mutat Res 676:41–4710.1016/j.mrgentox.2009.03.004 ↗
2. Belyanskaya L, Weigel S, Hirsch C, Tobler U, Krug HF (2009) Effects of carbon nanotubes on primary neurons and glial cells. Neurotoxicology 30:702–71110.1016/j.neuro.2009.05.005 ↗
3. Besley J, Kramer V, Priest S (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risk, benefits and regulations. J Nanopart Res 10(4):549–55810.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 ↗
4. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2006) Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier. Futures 38(9):1060–107310.1016/j.futures.2006.02.017 ↗
5. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2009) From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 1:1–20
6. Chau CF, Wu SH, Yen GC (2007) The development of regulations for food nanotechnology. Trends Food Sci Technol 18(5):269–28010.1016/j.tifs.2007.01.007 ↗
7. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–40510.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
8. Consumer Reports (2007). Possible risks: no small matter. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/nanotechnology-7-07/possiblerisks/0707_nano_risk_1.htm
9. European Commission (2001) Euro barometer survey on Europeans Science and Technology. European Commission, Brussels
10. EU Commission (2004) Communication of the European commission “Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology” COM (2004). http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/nanotechnology_communication_en.pdf
11. Ferber BD (1999) Risks and benefits: GM crops in the cross hairs. Science 286:1662–166610.1126/science.286.5445.1662 ↗
12. Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J, Allum NC (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science 285:384–38710.1126/science.285.5426.384 ↗
13. HRA-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. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7040/final-synbioreport.pdf
14. Inoue KI, Takano H, Yanasigawa R, Koike E (2009) Size effects of latex nanomaterials on long inflammation in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 234:68–7610.1016/j.taap.2008.09.012 ↗
15. Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative council (2005) Iranian action plan for nanotechnology development, May 2005. http://www.nano.ir (in Persian)
16. Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative council (2010) http://www.nano.ir/info
17. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D (2008) Nanotechnology risk perception, the influence of affect and values. Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School
18. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci Commun 27:240–26710.1177/1075547005281474 ↗
19. Leggett M, Finaly M (2001) Science, story and image: a new approach to crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon. Public Understanding of Science 10:157–17110.1088/0963-6625/10/2/301 ↗
20. Marcus G (2004) The sentimental citizen: emotion in democratic politics. Penn State University press, University Park
21. Marcus G, Mac Kuen M, Neuman R (2000) Affective intelligence. University of Chicago press, Chicago
22. Morgan K (2005) Development of a preliminary framework for informing of risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Anal 25:1621–163510.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00681.x ↗
23. National Academy of Sciences (2000) Genetically modified pest-protected plants: Science and Regulation. Committee on Genetically modified pest-protected plants. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
24. Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultra fine particles. Environ Health Perspect 13:823–83910.1289/ehp.7339 ↗
25. Paschen H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Oertel D (2004) Understanding nanotechnology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York
26. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T (2008) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and the UK. Nat Nanotechnol 4:95–9810.1038/nnano.2008.362 ↗
27. Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace WAH, Seaton A, Stone V, Brown S, MacNee W, Donaldson K (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenesis. Nat Nanotechnol 3(7):423–42810.1038/nnano.2008.111 ↗
28. Priest SH (1995) Information equity, public understanding of sciences and biotechnology debate. J Commun 45:39–5410.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00713.x ↗
29. Priest S (2006) The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 8:563–56810.1007/s11051-005-9060-7 ↗
30. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8:153–19110.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 ↗
31. Robins R (2001) Over burdening risks: policy frameworks and the public uptake of gene technology. Public Underst Sci 10:19–3610.1088/0963-6625/10/1/302 ↗
32. Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 5:181–18910.1023/A:1025548512438 ↗
33. Roco MC, Williams RS, Alivisatos P (eds) (1999) Nanotechnology Research Directions, Springer, Washington, DC, NSF/WTEC Report (former Kluwer Academic Publishers), 2000, 316 pp. http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Research.Directions/10.1007/978-94-015-9576-6 ↗
34. Royal Society and Royal Academy of engineering (2004) Nano sciences and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society, London. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/report.pdf
35. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: hoe citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
36. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih TJ, 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 ↗
37. Siegel R, Hu E, Roco MC (eds) (1999) Nanostructure science and technology, National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), WTEC report, 320 pp, Springer, Washington, DC (former Kluwer Academic Publishers), 2000
38. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S (2007a) Lay people’s and experts’ perception of hazards. Risk Anal 27:59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
39. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007b) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459–46610.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
40. Simons J, Zimmer R, Vierboom C (2009) The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1555–157110.1007/s11051-009-9653-7 ↗
41. Smiley SE, Hosgood HD, Michleson ES, Stowe MH (2008) Americans’ nanotechnology risk perception. J Ind Ecol 12(3):459–47310.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00032.x ↗
42. Tytler R, Duggan S, Gott R (2001) Public participation in an environmental dispute: implications for science and education. Public Underst Sci 10:343–36410.1088/0963-6625/10/4/301 ↗
43. 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 12:373–38110.1007/s11051-009-9809-5 ↗
44. Vierboom C, Harlen I, Simons J (2009) Public perceptions about nanotechnology. Representative survey and basic morphological-psychological study. In: Zimmer R, Hertel R, Bol GF (eds) Wissenschaft 01/2009. http://bfr.bund.de/cm/290/public_perceptions_about_nanotechnology.pdf
45. Waldron AM, Spencer D, Batt CA (2006) The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 8:569–57510.1007/s11051-006-9112-7 ↗
46. Yasumoto F, Abe S (2006) Questionnaire survey report on nanotechnology and society. Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly, 4: article no. 6