The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
According to numerous surveys the perceived risk of nanotechnology is low and most people feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. This article provides greater insight into risk perception and concludes that the positive attitude to nanotechnology is based not on knowledge but on hope and fascination. The perceived risk is low because of a lack of vivid and frightening images of possible hazards. If news flashes were to link nanotechnology to concrete hazards or actual harm to people, attitudes might suddenly change. Risk communication faces the problem of dealing with a public at large that has little or no knowledge about the technology. As it takes time and extensive additional research to develop appropriate communication strategies and disseminate them to the relevant institutions, this exercise should be started immediately.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Risk and Safety Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14:1085–1096. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x ↗
2. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405. doi:10.1007/s11051-004-3394-410.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
3. Damasio AR (1994) Decartes’ error: emotion reason and the human brain. Grosset/Putnam, New York
4. Elkins N (2005) Nanotechnology: a national survey of consumers. Report prepared for Dandolo Partners
5. Fitzek H, Salber W (1996) Gestaltpsychologie: Geschichte und Praxis. Darmstadt
6. Fleischer T, Quendt C (2007) „Unsichtbar und unendlich” Bürgerperspektiven auf Nanopartikel Ergebnisse zweier Fokusgruppen-Veranstaltungen in Karlsruhe. Wissenschaftliche Berichte FZKA 7337
7. Flynn J, Burns W, Mertz CK, Slovic P (1992) Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: analysis of a structural model. Risk Anal 12:417–429. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00694.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00694.x ↗
8. Fujita Y, Abe S (2005) Questionnaire survey report on nanotechnology and society. Report des Nanotechnology Research Institute
9. Gaskell G, Allansdottir A, Allum N, Corchero C, Fischler C, Hampel J, Jackson J, Kronberger N, Mejlgaard N, Revuelta G, Schreiner C, Stares S, Torgersen H, Wagner W (2006) Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends. Eurobarometer 64.3. A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research
10. Härlen I, Simons J, Vierboom C (2004) Die Informationsflut bewältigen - Über den Umgang mit Informationen zu Lebensmitteln aus psychologischer Sicht (How to cope with information overload—a psychological view on processing information about food). Dr. Rainer Wild Stiftung, Heidelberg
11. Henddickx L, Vlek C, Oppewal H (1989) Relative importance of scenario and information and frequency information in the judgement of risk. Acta Psychol (Amst) 72:41–63. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(89)90050-410.1016/0001-6918(89)90050-4 ↗
12. HRA—Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2006) Report findings. Conducted on behalf of: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/98. Accessed 21 April 2009
13. HRA—Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2007) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. A report of findings conducted on behalf of: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/Hart_NanoPoll_2007.pdf. Assessed 21 April 2009
14. 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. Accessed 21 April 2009
15. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G (2007) Nanotechnology risk perceptions: the influence of affect and values. Conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2710/164_nanotechriskperceptions_dankahan.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2009
16. Komm.Passion GmbH (2004) Wissen und Einstellungen zur Nanotechnologie. http://www.komm-passion.de/fileadmin/bilder/themen/pdf/Nanostudie_kurz.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2009
17. MARS—Market Attitude Research Service (2005) Australian community opinion towards nanotechnology and the commercialisation of scientific research. Short report. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Documents/2004%20MARS%20Community%20Survey%20Nov%2004.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2009
18. MARS—Market Attitude Research Service (2007) Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology—trends 2005 to 2007. Final report. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Documents/MARSreport20070801094555.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2009
19. MARS—Market Attitude Research Service (2008) Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology—trends 2005 to 2008. Presentation report. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Documents/Summary_Report_Public_Attitudes_towards_Nanotechnology_2008.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2009
20. Renn O (1995) Style of using scientific expertise: a comparative framework. Sci Public Policy 22:147–15610.1093/spp/22.3.147 ↗
21. Renn O, Levine D (1991) Trust and credibility in risk communication. In: Kasperson R, Stallen PJ (eds) Communicating risk to the public. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 175–21810.1007/978-94-009-1952-5_10 ↗
22. Rosenbladt B, Schwupp J (2007) Nanotechnologie in der Bevölkerung noch wenig bekannt. In: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsförderung
23. (ed) Wochenbericht, 74 Jg Nr. 45/2007, pp 673-677. http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/74781/07-45-1.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2009
24. Schulte K (2005) Lernen durch Einsicht. Erweiterung des gestaltpsychologischen Lernbegriffs. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden10.1007/978-3-322-80819-6 ↗
25. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:369–37910.1177/0963662506071282 ↗
26. Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perception of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–203. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.20202010.1111/0272-4332.202020 ↗
27. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27:59–69. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
28. Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x ↗
29. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (2000) Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Slovic P (ed) The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications, London, pp 137–153
30. TA-Swiss (2006) Nanotechnologien in der Schweiz: Herausforderungen erkannt. Bericht zum Dialogverfahren publifocus „Nanotechnologien und ihre Bedeutung für Gesundheit und Umwelt”. Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung TA-P 8/2006 d
31. Vierboom C, Härlen I, Simons J (2009) Public perceptions about nanotechnology. Representative survey and basic morphological-psychological study. In: Zimmer R, Hertel R, Böl GF (eds) Wissenschaft 01/2009. http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/290/public_perceptions_about_nanotechnology.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2009
32. Wiedemann PM, Schütz H (2001) Risiko-Stories und Risikobewertung. Paper des Forschungszentrums Jülich, Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik10.1007/BF03041511 ↗
33. Zimmer R, Domasch S, Scholl G, Zschiesche M, Petschow U, Hertel RF, Böl GF (2007) Nanotechnologien im öffentlichen Diskurs: Deutsche Verbraucherkonferenz mit Votum. Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis 3:98–101. http://www.itas.fzk.de/tatup/073/ziua07a.pdf. Accessed 21 April 200910.14512/tatup.16.3.98 ↗
34. Zschiesche M, Domasch S, Petschow U, Scholl G, Renn O, Ulmer F (2009) BfR consumer conference nanotechnology. Pilot project to identify consumer risk perception. In: Zimmer R, Hertel R, Böl GF (eds) BfR Wissenschaft 03/2009. http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/238/bfr_consumer_conference_nanotechnology.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2009