Nanotechnology as an experiment in democracy: how do citizens form opinions about technology and policy?
Source abstract
Abstract
This article analyzes nanotechnology as an experiment in democratic deliberation, one that seems motivated both by a desire to improve deliberative democracy and to protect the technology from undue public interference. However, rather than involving amplified (overstated) risks, nanotechnology appears to involve attenuated (understated) risks. Results from a 3-year panel study are presented to illustrate the ways in which citizens form opinions about nanotechnology, supporting the assertion that public opinion about complex technology can be both reasonable and stable. Nevertheless, the authors also voice concern that, in the absence of public pressure, risk regulation may not evolve as swiftly as it should to protect both society and industry.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. Besley JC (2010) Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Sci Commun 32:256–28010.1177/1075547009358624 ↗
2. Bishop GF (2005) The illusion of public opinion: fact and artifact in american public opinion polls. Roman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD
3. Boydston JA (ed) (1967) The early works of John Dewey, 1882–1898. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL
4. Dewey J (1922) Human nature and conduct: an introduction to social psychology. Henry Holt and Company, New York10.1037/14663-000 ↗
5. Dewey J (1927) The public and its problems. Henry Holt and Company, New York
6. Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24:5–1110.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 ↗
7. Garmire E, Pearson G (2006) Tech tally: approaches to assessing technological literacy. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
8. Hamlett PW, Cobb MD (2006) Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: structured deliberations and polarization cascades. Policy Stud J 34:629–64810.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00195.x ↗
9. Hart Research Associates (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology: a report of findings based on a national survey among adults. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7040/final-synbioreport.pdf . Accessed 5 September 2010
10. Hart Research Associates (2009) Nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and public opinion: a report of findings based on a national survey among adults. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/8286/nano_synbio.pdf . Accessed 5 September 2010
11. Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX (1996) The social amplification and attenuation of risk. Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 545:95–10510.1177/0002716296545001010 ↗
12. Kleinman D, Delborne JA, Anderson AA (2009) Engaging citizens: the high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Underst Sci 1:1–20
13. Kuzma J, Priest SH (2010) Nanotechnology, risk, and oversight: learning lessons from related emerging technologies. Risk Anal 30:1688–169810.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01471.x ↗
14. Lippmann W (1922) Public opinion. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York
15. Powell M, Colin M (2008) Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: what would it really take? Sci Commun 20:126–13610.1177/1075547008320520 ↗
16. Priest SH (2001) A grain of truth: the media. The public and biotechnology. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD
17. Priest SH, Greenhalgh T (under review) Attitudinal communities and the interpretation of nanotechnology news: frames, schemas, and attitudes as predictors of reader reactions. Risk Anal
18. Priest SH, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11–2010.1007/s11051-009-9789-5 ↗
19. Priest SH, Lane T, Greenhalgh T, Hand LJ, Kramer V (under review) envisioning emerging nanotechnologies: a three-year panel study of South Carolina citizens. Risk Anal
20. Smith C (2010) Deliberative democracy. In: Priest SH (ed) Encyclopedia of science and technology communication. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
21. Toumey C (2006) Science and democracy. Nat Nanotechnol 1:6–710.1038/nnano.2006.71 ↗
22. Weaver D, Lively E, Bimber B (2009) Searching for a frame: news media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Sci Commun 31:139–16610.1177/1075547009340345 ↗
23. Zaller J, Feldman S (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions versus revealing preferences. Am J Political Sci 36:579–61610.2307/2111583 ↗