Advertisement

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 13, Issue 8, pp 3089–3099 | Cite as

Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks

  • David M. BerubeEmail author
  • Christopher L. Cummings
  • Jordan H. Frith
  • Andrew R. Binder
  • Robert Oldendick
Research Paper

Abstract

Over the last decade social scientific researchers have examined how the public perceives risks associated with nanotechnology. The body of literature that has emerged has been methodologically diverse. The findings have confirmed that some publics perceive nanotechnology as riskier than others, experts feel nanotechnology is less risky than the public does, and despite risks the public is optimistic about nanotechnology development. However, the extant literature on nanotechnology and risk suffers from sometimes widely divergent findings and has failed to provide a detailed picture of how the public actually feels about nanotechnology risks when compared to other risks. This study addresses the deficiencies in the literature by providing a comparative approach to gauging nanotechnology risks. The findings show that the public does not fear nanotechnology compared to other risks. Out of 24 risks presented to the participants, nanotechnology ranked 19th in terms of overall risk and 20th in terms of “high risk.”

Keywords

Nanoparticles Risk perception Public opinion Ranking Comparative analysis Nanotechnology ELSI 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation NSF 0809470, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive toxicology and Public Engagement. All opinions expressed within are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation, North Carolina State University or the University of South Carolina.

References

  1. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balbus JM, Florini K, Denison RA, Walsh SA (2007) Protecting workers and the environment: an environmental NGO’s perspective on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 9:11–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berube DM, Cummings CL, Cacciatore M, Scheufele D, Kalin J (2010a) Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: expert Delphi survey. Nanotoxicology. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2010.521633
  4. Berube DM, Faber B, Scheufele DA, Cummings CL, Gardner GE, Martin KN, Martin MS, Temple NM (2010b) Communicating risk in the 21st century: The case of nanotechnology. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Besley J, Kramer V, Priest S (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risk, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder AR, Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Shaw BR, Corley EA (2011). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Underst Sci. doi:  10.1177/0963662510390159
  7. Bishop G, Oldebdick RW, Tuchfarber AJ (1984) What must my interest in politics be if I just told you ‘I don’t know”? Public Opin Quart 53:510–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. BMRB Social Research (2004) Nanotechnology: views of the general public, quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the nanotechnology study. BMRB International Report 45101, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Bundesinstitut Fur Robiew (2007) Majority of consumers view the development of nanotechnology favourably. Bundesinstitut Fur Robiew Press Release 23. http://www.bfr.bund.de/cd/10563. Accessed 1 October 2010
  10. Burnstein E, Vinokur A (1975) When a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts. J Exp Soc Psychol 9:123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burri RV, Belluci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10:387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2009). From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci doi:  10.1177/0963662509347815
  13. Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1:153–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2008) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Einsiedel E (2005) In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnologies among Canadian and US publics. J Nanotechnol Online. http://www.azonano.com/Details.as. Accessed 1 October 2010
  16. Entin EE, Serfaty JD, Forester J (1989) Sequential processing of information from multiple sources. Technical Report TR-277- 1, Alphatech Inc., BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2005) Europeans, science and technology. Eurobarometer special survey 154, organized and supervised by DG Press and Communication, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2010
  18. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14:1101–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox CR, Irwin JR (1998) The role of context in the communication of uncertain beliefs. Basic Appl Soc Psych 20:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaskell G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaskell G, Eyck TA, Jackson J, Veltri G (2004) From our readers: public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater 3:496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG) http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report105.pdf. Accessed 29 September 2010
  24. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics, vol 3: Speech acts. Academic, New York, pp 95–113Google Scholar
  25. Hart (2006) Public awareness of nano grows––majority remain unaware. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://nanotechproject.org/78/public-awareness-of-nano-grows-but-majority-unaware. Accessed 28 September 2010
  26. Hart (2007) Awareness of and attitude toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://www.nanotechproject.org/138/9252007-poll-reveals-public-awareness-of-nanotech-stuck-at-low-level. Accessed 28 September 2010
  27. Hart (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/final-synbioreport.pdf. Accessed 29 September 2010
  28. Hart (2009) Nanotechnology, synthetic biology and public opinion. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/8286/. Accessed 29 September 2010
  29. Hart (2010) Awareness and impression of synthetic biology. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://bio.org/ind/syntheticbiology/hart2010report_final.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2010
  30. In science we trust (2010) In science we trust: poll results on how you feel about science. Sci Amer. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-science-we-trust-poll. Accessed 1 October 2010
  31. Kahan DM (2009) Nanotechnology and society: the evolution of risk perceptions. Nat Nanotechnol 4:705–706. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2009.329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaplan D (2009) Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Kreyling W, Semmler-Behnke M, Moller W (2006) Health implications of nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 8:543–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kunreuther H, Slovic P (1996) Science, values, and risk. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 545:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levine T (2005) Confirmatory factor analysis and scale validation in communication research. Commun Res Rep 22:335–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacGregor DG, Slovic P, Morgan MG (1994) Perceptions of risks from electromagnetic fields: a psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk Anal 14:815–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221–241. doi: 10.1177/0963662506056993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morrison JT (2009) Evaluating factor analysis decisions for scale design in communication research. Commun M Meas 3:195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mussweiler T, Strack F (2001) The semantic of anchoring. Organ Behav Hum Dec 86:234–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Park H, Daley R, Lemus D (2002) The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Hum Comm Res 28:562–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2009) Risk perceptions starting to shift?. U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11–20. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9789-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robichaud CO, Tanzil D, Weilenmann U, Wiesner MR (2005) Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environ Sci Technol 39:8985–8994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 5:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CE, Conti J, Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2009.265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667. doi: 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–734. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2007.392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siegrist M, Wiek A, Helland A, Kastenholz H (2007) Risks and nanotechnology: the public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nat Nanotechnol 2:67. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2007.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. TA Swiss-Centre for Technology Assessment (2006) Public reactions to nanotechnology in Switzerland: report on Publifocus discussion forum “nanotechnology, health and environment”. http://www.ta-swiss.ch/e/them_nano_pfna.html. Accessed 26 September 2010
  50. Tourangeau R, Rasinski K, Bradburn N, D’Andrade R (1989) Carryover effects in attitude surveys. Public Opin Quart 53:495–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski KA (2000) The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 3:207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vitale DC, Armenakis AA, Field HS (2008) Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods for organizational diagnosis: possible priming effects? J Mix Method Res 2:87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson T, Hodges S (1991) Attitudes as temporary constructs. In: Tesser J, Martin L (eds) The construction of social judgment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 37–65Google Scholar
  55. Zaller J, Feldman S (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions versus revealing preferences. Am J Polit Sci 36:579–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Berube
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher L. Cummings
    • 2
  • Jordan H. Frith
    • 2
  • Andrew R. Binder
    • 3
  • Robert Oldendick
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Communication, Public Communication of Science and Technology Project, Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media ProgramNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Public Communication of Science and Technology Project, Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media ProgramNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Department of Communication, Public Communication of Science and Technology ProjectNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  4. 4.Department of Government and International Studies and Executive Director, Institute for Public Service and Policy ResearchUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations