Advertisement

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 395–405 | Cite as

Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust

  • Michael D. cobb
  • Jane Macoubrie
Article

Abstract

We report data from the first representative national phone survey of Americans' perceptions about nanotechnology (N =1536). Public opinion about nanotechnology is in its infancy, and knowledge about it is quite limited. Yet, Americans' initial reaction to nanotechnology is thus far generally positive, probably rooted in a generally positive view of science overall. Survey respondents expected benefits of nanotechnology to be more prevalent than risks, and they reported feeling hopeful about nanotechnology rather than worried. Their most preferred potential benefit of nanotechnology is “new and better ways to detect and treat human diseases,” and they identified “losing personal privacy to tiny new surveillance devices” as the most important potential risk to avoid. The most discouraging aspect to the data is respondents' lack of trust in business leaders to minimize nanotechnology risks to human health. Overall, these data indicate that while Americans do not necessarily presume benefits and the absence of risks, their outlook is much more positive than not.

nanotechnology nanoscale science and engineering public opinion survey social implications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bainbridge W.S., 2002. Public attitudes towards nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 4, 561–570.Google Scholar
  2. Colvin V., 2004. (March10), Responsible nanotechnology: Looking beyond the good news. EurekaAlert!, Essay 1102 (http://www.eurekalert.org).Google Scholar
  3. Couper M.P., 2000. Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Publ.Opin.Q. 64, 464–481.Google Scholar
  4. Crichton M., 2002. Prey. Harper Collins, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Delli Carpini M.X. & S. Keeter, 1989. What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  6. Ferber D., 1999. Risks and benefits: GM crops in the cross hairs. Science 286, 1662–1666.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gaskell G., M.W. Bauer, J. Durant & N.C. Allum, 1999. Worlds apart?: The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the USA. Science 285, 1664.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan M.F. & L.E. Miller, 1987. Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 306–313.Google Scholar
  9. Leggett M. & M. Finlay, 2001. Science, story, and image: A new approach to crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon. Publ. Understanding Sci. 10, 157–171.Google Scholar
  10. Marcus G., 2002. The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion on in Democratic Politics. Penn State University Press, University, Park, PA.Google Scholar
  11. Marcus G. M. MacKuen & R. Neuman, 2000. Affective Intelligence. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Meyers R.A., 1989. Persuasive arguments theory: A test of assumptions. Human Commun. Res. 15, 357–381.Google Scholar
  13. National Academy of Sciences, 2000. Genetically modified pestprotected plants: Science and regulation. Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants, National. Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Page B.I. & R.Y. Shapiro, 1992. The Rational Public. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  15. Priest S.H., 1995. Information equity, public understanding of sciences, and the biotechnology debate. J. Commun. 45, 39–54.Google Scholar
  16. Robins R., 2001. Overburdening risk: Policy frameworks and the public uptake of gene technology. Publ. Understanding Sci. 10, 19–36.Google Scholar
  17. Roco M.C., 2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 5, 181–189.Google Scholar
  18. Roco M.C., & W.S. Bainbridge, eds., 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. Tytler R., S. Duggan & R. Gott, 2001. Public participation in an environmental dispute: Implications for science education. Publ. Understanding Sci. 10, 343–364.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael D. cobb
    • 1
  • Jane Macoubrie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations