Numbers, scale and symbols: the public understanding of nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
Nanotechnology will be an increasing part of the everyday lives of most people in the world. There is a general recognition that few people understand the implications of the technology, the technology itself or even the definition of the word. This lack of understanding stems from a lack of knowledge about science in general but more specifically difficulty in grasping the size scale and symbolism of nanotechnology. A potential key to informing the general public is establishing the ability to comprehend the scale of nanotechnology. Transitioning from the macro to the nanoscale seems to require an ability to comprehend scales of one-billion. Scaling is a skill not common in most individuals and tests of their ability to extrapolate size based upon scaling a common object demonstrates that most individuals cannot scale to the extent needed to make the transition to nanoscale. Symbolism is another important vehicle to providing the general public with a basis to understand the concepts of nanotechnology. With increasing age, individuals are able to draw representations of atomic scale objects, but these tend to be iconic and the different representations not easily translated. Ball and stick models are most recognized by the public, which provides an opportunity to present not only useful symbolism but also a reference point for the atomic scale.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Neuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function · Science Education and Pedagogy · Attention Economy in Education and Business
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. Anonymous (2003) Nanotechnology faces GM-style backlash. IEE Rev 49(3)
2. Bainbridge W (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561–57010.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
3. Beer V (1987) Great expectations: Do museums know what visitors are doing? Curator 30(3):206–21510.1111/j.2151-6952.1987.tb00664.x ↗
4. Booth JL, Siegler RS (2006) Developmental and individual differences in pure numerical estimation. Dev Psych 41(6):189–20110.1037/0012-1649.41.6.189 ↗
5. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–40510.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
6. Cohen DJ, Ferrell JM et al (2002) What very small numbers mean. J Exp Psych 131(3):424–44210.1037/0096-3445.131.3.424 ↗
7. Crommie MF, Lutz CP et al (1993) Confinement of electrons to quantum corrals on a metal surface. Science 262(5131):218–22010.1126/science.262.5131.218 ↗
8. DeLoache JS, Kolstad V et al (1991) Physical similarity and young children’s understanding of scale models. Child Dev 62:111–12610.2307/1130708 ↗
9. DeLoache JS, Uttal DH et al (2004) Scale errors offer evidence for a perception-action dissociation early in life. Science 304:1027–102910.1126/science.1093567 ↗
10. DeVellis RF (2003). Scale development: theory and applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
11. Dowling A (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Available http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm
12. Ferk V, Vrtacnik M et al (2003) Students’ understanding of molecular structure representations. In J Sci Educ 25(10):1227–124510.1080/0950069022000038231 ↗
13. Friedman SM, Egold BP (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Tech Soc Magazine 24(4):5–1110.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 ↗
14. Harrison AG, Treagust DF (2000) Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: a case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry. Sci Edu 84(3):352–38110.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<352::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-J ↗
15. Kesidou S, Roseman JE (2003) Projecte 201 analyses of middle-school science textbooks: a response to holliday. J Res Sci Teach 40(5):535–54310.1002/tea.10095 ↗
16. Kjolberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. NanoEthics 1:89–10410.1007/s11569-007-0011-x ↗
17. Knight H, Pierce J (2003) To kill a technology. The Engineer 291:24–29
18. Kozma R, Russell J (1997) Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. J Res Sci Teach 34(9):949–96810.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9<949::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-U ↗
19. Krajcik J, Stevens S et al (2007) Big Ideas in Nanoscience. Retrieved November 26, Available http://www.nanoed.org/news/docs/011207/JoeKrajcik-NSF_Nano_Big_IDEA.pdf
20. Laszlo P (2000) Playing with molecular models. Int J Phil Chem 6(1):85–97
21. Mills K, Fledderman C (2005) Getting the best from nanotechnology: approaching social and ethical implications openly and proactively. IEEE Tech Soc Magazine 24(4):18–2610.1109/MTAS.2005.1563498 ↗
22. Morrissey SR (2004) Harnessing nanotechnology. Chem Eng News 82(16):30–3310.1021/cen-v082n016.p030 ↗
23. Parr D (2005) Will nanotechnology make the world a better place? Trends Biotechnol 23(8):395–39810.1016/j.tibtech.2005.06.001 ↗
24. Pasachoff JM (2003) What should students learn? Stellar magnitudes. Astro Educ Rev 2(2):162–16510.3847/AER2003023 ↗
25. Robinson WR (2000) Learning about atoms, molecules and chemical bonds: a case study of multiple-model use. J Chem Educ 77(9):1110–111110.1021/ed077p1110 ↗
26. Roco MC (2003a) Broader Societal Issues of Nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 5(3–4):181–18910.1023/A:1025548512438 ↗
27. Roco MC (2003b) Public affairs forum—national nanotechnology initiative to advance broad societal goals. MRS Bull 28(6):41610.1557/mrs2003.120 ↗
28. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanopart Res 7(1):1–1310.1007/s11051-004-2336-5 ↗
29. Rodriguez MA, Niaz M (2004) A Reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for general physics textbooks: a history and philosophy of science perspective. J Sci Educ Tech 13(3):409–42410.1023/B:JOST.0000045468.49500.3b ↗
30. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
31. Schulz WG (2004) Nanotechnology under the scope. Chem Eng News 82(10):23–2410.1021/cen-v082n010.p026 ↗
32. Selin C (2007) Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci Tech Human Values 32(2):196–20010.1177/0162243906296918 ↗
33. Service RF (2004) Nanotech forum aims to head off replay of past blunders. Science 306(5698):95510.1126/science.306.5698.955a ↗
34. Thurs DP (2007) Tiny tech, transcendent tech. Sci Commun 29(1):65–9510.1177/1075547007306340 ↗
35. Toumey C (2007) Cubism at the nanoscale. Nature Nanotech 2:587–58910.1038/nnano.2007.310 ↗
36. Waldron AM, Spencer D et al (2006) The current state of pubic understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 8:569–57510.1007/s11051-006-9112-7 ↗
37. Wilkinson C, Allan S et al (2007) From uncertainty to risk?: scientific and news media portrayals of nanopart safety. Health Risk Soc 9(2):145–15710.1080/13698570701306823 ↗