Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Public Opinion of Nanotechnology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nanotechnology in Dermatology

Abstract

A common refrain among scientists, policymakers, academics, and even consumer advocacy groups is that the public is simply too uninformed about, disinterested in, or otherwise afraid of groundbreaking emerging sciences like nanotechnology. Scapegoats for these problems abound, with blame placed alternately on a fickle media culture that emphasizes sensation over substance, the decline of science sections in newspapers, the use of nanotechnology as a narrative device in science fiction stories, or else simply the decline and stagnation of scientific literacy in the USA. But to what extent do these explanations hold up to empirical scrutiny? To what extent do they help us gain a better understanding of opinion formation about nanotechnology as opposed to distracting us from other important questions of public opinion? This chapter tackles these questions by evaluating empirical data on public opinion of nanotechnology from the past decade.

Andrew R. Binder (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2010) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Associate Director of the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCOST) project olina State University. His research focuses on public opinion, the interplay between science and politics, and risk communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bainbridge WS. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2002;4(6):561–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res. 2004;6(4):395–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorn BH. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4(11):752–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 12-01); 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Smith TW, Marsden P, Hout M, Kim J. General social surveys, 1972–2010 [machine-readable data file]. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Binder AR, Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Shaw BR, Corley EA. Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662510390159.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Sterlin, VA: Earthscan; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Berube DM, Cummings CL, Frith JH, Binder AR, Oldendick R. Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(8):3089–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, et al. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988;8(2):177–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fishkin JS. Democracy and deliberation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cobb MD. Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(4):1533–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4(2):95–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Powell M, Kleinman DL. Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Underst Sci. 2008;17(3):329–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Powell M, Colin M, Kleinman DL, Delborne J, Anderson A. Imagining ordinary citizens? Conceptualized and actual participants for deliberations on emerging technologies. Sci Cult. 2011;20(1): 37–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hamlett PW, Cobb MD. Potential solutions to public deliberation problems: structured deliberations and polarization cascades. Policy Stud J. 2006;34(4): |629–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kahneman D. Maps of bounded rationality: a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. In: Frängsmyr T, editor. Les Prix Nobel: The Nobel Prizes 2002. Stockholm, Sweden: Nobel Foundation; 2003. p. 449–89.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA. What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot. 2009;96(10):1767–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA. The future of public engagement. Scientist. 2007;21(10):38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A. Framing risk: nanotechnologies in the news. J Risk Res. 2010;13(1):29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cobb MD. Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun. 2005;27(2):221–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Druckman JN, Bolsen T. Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. J Commun. 2011;61(4):659–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Landau J, Groscurth CR, Wright L, Condit CM. Visualizing nanotechnology: the impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(3):325–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schutz H, Wiedemann PM. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2008;17(3):369–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA. From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(3):385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dudo A, Choi DH, Scheufele DA. Food nanotechnology in the news. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite. 2011;56(1):78–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stephens LF. News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Sci Commun. 2005;27(2):175–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA. The emergence of nano news: tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. Newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journal Mass Commun Q. 2011;88(1):55–75.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weaver DA, Lively E, Bimber B. Searching for a frame news media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Sci Commun. 2009;31(2):139–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Friedman SM, Egolf BP. A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Anal. 2011;31(11):1701–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res. 2005;7(6):659–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q. Of risks and regulations: how leading US nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2009;11(7):1573–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback ED, Guston DH. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol. 2007;2(12):732–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal. 2007;27(1):59–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH. Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res. 2008;10(4):549–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Corley EA, Scheufele DA. Outreach going wrong? Scientist. 2010;24(1):22.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(5):546–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih TJ, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4(2):91–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4(2):87–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values. 2005;30(2):251–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Xenos MA, Becker AB, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Stimulating upstream engagement: an experimental study of nanotechnology information seeking. Soc Sci Q. 2011;92(5):1191–214.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Siegrist M, Keller C. Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal. 2011;31(11):1762–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, North Carolina State University, 103 Winston Hall, Campus Box 8104, Raleigh, NC, 27695-8104, USA

    Andrew R. Binder PhD

Authors
  1. Andrew R. Binder PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew R. Binder PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dermatology, UNC School of Medicine, 3100 Thurston Bowles Bldg, Chapel Hill, 27554, North Carolina, USA

    Adnan Nasir

  2. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, 10451, USA

    Adam Friedman

  3. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, 10065, USA

    Steven Wang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Binder, A.R. (2013). Understanding Public Opinion of Nanotechnology. In: Nasir, A., Friedman, A., Wang, S. (eds) Nanotechnology in Dermatology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5034-4_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5034-4_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5033-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5034-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation