Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 387–391 | Cite as

Public perception of nanotechnology

  • Regula Valérie BurriEmail author
  • Sergio Bellucci


While several studies on the public opinion of nanotechnology have pointed to a rather enthusiastic U.S. public, the public uptake of nanotechnology in Europe is more contained. The results of the Swiss publifocus on nanotechnology reveal a pragmatic attitude of citizens toward the emerging technologies, thus confirming what has been identified as a “balanced approach” in the NanoJury UK.


Nanotechnology Nanoscience Citizens Focus groups Upstream engagement Public attitudes Societal implications 


  1. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 4(6):561–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodmer WF (1985) Public understanding of science. Report of a Royal Society ad hoc group. The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust. J Nanoparticle Res 6(4):395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook AJ, Fairweather JR (2005) Nanotechnology—ethical and social issues: results from New Zealand focus groups. Research Report no. 281. Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University. URL (consulted 24 June 2006):
  5. ETC Group (2003) The big down: atomtech—technologies converging at the nanoscale. ETC Group, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. URL (consulted 26 November 2006):
  10. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Madison (2005) Report of the Madison area citizen consensus conference on nanotechnology. 24 April. URL (consulted 5 April 2006):
  12. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113(7):823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanoparticle Res 7:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2006) Reflecting upon the UK’s citizens’ jury on nanotechnologies: nanojury UK. Nanotechnol Law Business May/June:167–178Google Scholar
  15. Royal Society (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS policy document. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Stilgoe J, Wilson R (2005) Public engagement with science. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Swiss RE (2004) Nanotechnology: small matter—many unknowns. Swiss Reinsurance Company, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  18. TA-Swiss (2006a) Publifocus Nanotechnologien—Bedeutung für Gesundheit und Umwelt. Projektbeschrieb für die Durchführung eines Dialog-Verfahrens mit Bürgerinnen und Bürgern. Zentrum für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung beim Schweizerischen Wissenschafts- und Technologierat, BernGoogle Scholar
  19. TA-Swiss (2006b) Know your nano! information brochure for publifocus nanotechnology, health and the environment. Center for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council, BernGoogle Scholar
  20. TA-Swiss (2006c) Public reactions to nanotechnology in Switzerland: the findings of the publifocus discussion forum nanotechnology, health and the environment, by Lucienne Rey. Center for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council, BernGoogle Scholar
  21. Waldron AM, Spencer D, Batt CA (2006) The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 8:569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilsdon J, Wynne B, Stilgoe J (2005) The public value of science: or how to ensure that science really matters. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Human Values 16(1):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10(4):445–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ziman J (1991) Public understanding of science. Sci Technol Human Values 16(1):99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Collegium HelveticumETH & University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment (TA-Swiss)BerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations