Abstract
As has been demonstrated by recent societal controversies associated with the introduction of novel technologies, societal acceptance of a technology and its applications is shaped by consumers’ perceived risks and benefits. The research reported here investigates public perceptions of nanotechnology in Singapore, where technological innovation is an established part of the economy, and it might be expected that consumer perceptions of risk are low, and those of benefit are high. The contribution of socio-demographic variables, knowledge level and exposure to risk information in shaping risk perception about nanotechnology applications within different application sectors were analysed. About ~80 % of respondents have some understanding of nanotechnology, 60 % report having heard some negative information, and 39 % perceive nanotechnology as beneficial, while 27.5 % perceive it as risky. Nanotechnology application in food was reported to cause the most concern in the consumers included in the sample. Two-step cluster analysis of the data enabled grouping of respondents into those who expressed ‘less concern’ or ‘more concern’ based on their average scores for concern levels expressed with applications of nanotechnology in different sectors. Profiling of these clusters revealed that, apart from various socio-demographic factors, exposure to risk-related information, rather than awareness in nanotechnology itself, resulted in respondents expressing greater concern about nanotechnology applications. The results provide evidence upon which regulatory agencies and industries can base policies regarding informed risk–benefit communication and management associated with the introduction of commercial applications of nanotechnology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chaudhry Q, Scotter M, Blackburn J et al (2008) Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sector. Food Addit Contam A 25:241–258
Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405
Coles D, Frewer LJ (2013) Nanotechnology applied to European food production—a review of ethical and regulatory issues. Trends Food Sci Technol 34:32–43
Currall SC (2009) Nanotechnology and society: new insights into public perceptions. Nat Nanotechnol 4:79–80
Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M et al (2011) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press. Sci Commun. doi:10.1177/1075547011417892
Duncan TV (2011) Applications of nanotechnology in food packaging and food safety: barrier materials, antimicrobials and sensors. J Colloid Interface Sci 363:1–24
Fischer AR, van Dijk H, de Jonge J, Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2013) Attitudes and attitudinal ambivalence change towards nanotechnology applied to food production. Public Underst Sci 22:817–831
Freudenburg WR (1993) Risk and recreancy: weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Soc Forces 71:909–932
Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci Technol Human Values 22:98–124
Frewer LJ, Bergmann K, Brennan M et al (2011) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:442–456
Frewer LJ, van der Lans IA, Fischer ARH et al (2013) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol 30:142–152
Frewer LJ, Gupta N, George S, et al (2014) Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies applied to food production. Trends Food Sci Technol. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2014.06.005. (in press)
Friends of the Earth (2006) Nanotechnology project—Australia. Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: small ingredients big risks. http://nano.foe.org
Gupta N (2013) The views of experts and the public regarding societal preferences for innovation in nanotechnology. Doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University, Wageningen
Gupta N, Fischer AR, Frewer LJ (2012) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci 21:782–795
Gupta N, Fischer AH, George S et al (2013) Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments. J Nanopart Res 15:1–15
Harrison Interactive (2012) Nanotechnology awareness may be low, but opinions are strong. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris%20Poll%2052%20-%20Nanotechnology_9%206%2012.pdf
Ho A (2011) Nanotech in wider context. Strait Times Singapore
Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P et al (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–90
Keller AA, Lazareva A (2013) Predicted releases of engineered nanomaterials: from global to regional to local. Environ Sci Technol Lett 1:65–70
Mangematin V, Walsh S (2012) The future of nanotechnologies. Technovation 32:157–160
Mansoori AG, Soelaiman FTA (2005) Nanotechnology—an introduction for the standards community. J ASTM Int 2:JAI13110
Marchant GE, Abbott KW (2013) International harmonization of nanotechnology governance through “soft law” approaches. Nanotechnol Law Bus 9:393–410
Maynard AD, Aitken RJ, Butz T et al (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267–269
Metag J, Marcinkowski F (2013) Technophobia towards emerging technologies? A comparative analysis of the media coverage of nanotechnology in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Journalism 15(4):463–481. doi:10.1177/1464884913491045
Nanoaction (2007) Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. Nanoaction. A project of the international center for technology assessment. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/final-pdf-principles-for-oversight-of-nanotechnologies_80684.pdf
Peter D. Hart Research Associates (2007) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies (Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies). http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/files/5888/hart_nanopoll_2007.pdf
Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K et al (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4:95–98
Priest S, Greenhalgh T (2012) Attitudinal communities and the interpretation of nanotechnology news: frames, schemas, and attitudes as predictors of readers reactions. In: Van Lente H, Coenen C, Fleisher T, Konrad K, Krabbenborg L, Milburn C, Thoreau F, Zülsdorf TB (eds) Little by little: expansions of nanoscience and emerging technologies. IOS Press, Heidelberg
Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH et al (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:883
Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H et al (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27:59–69
Smolander M, Chaudhry Q (2010) Nanotechnologies in food packaging. In: Chaudhry Q, Castle L, Watkins R (eds) Nanotechnologies in food, RSC nanoscience & nanotechnology. Royal Society of Chemistry, Great Britain
Statistics (2014) Latest data. Singapore Department of Statistics. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest_data.html
Toh K (2011) Cosmetic chemical may cause cancer. Strait Times, Singapore
Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A et al (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20:195–206
Zimmer R, Hertel R, Böl G-F (2008) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: representative survey and basic morphological–psychological study. (Federal Institute for Risk Assessment). http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/350/public_perceptions_about_nanotechnology.pdf
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all the respondents of this survey study. SG would like to acknowledge the funding support from NYP-FYP funds.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Saji George and Gulbanu Kaptan have contributed equally to this work.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
George, S., Kaptan, G., Lee, J. et al. Awareness on adverse effects of nanotechnology increases negative perception among public: survey study from Singapore. J Nanopart Res 16, 2751 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-014-2751-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-014-2751-1