Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 13, Issue 12, pp 6231–6244 | Cite as

Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science

  • Andrea Retzbach
  • Joachim Marschall
  • Marion Rahnke
  • Lukas Otto
  • Michaela Maier
Perspectives

Abstract

In this article, we report data from an online questionnaire study with 587 respondents, representative for the adult U.S. population in terms of age, gender, and level of education. The aim of this study was to assess how interest in science and knowledge as well as beliefs about science are associated with risk and benefit perceptions of nanotechnology. The findings suggest that the U.S. public is still rather unfamiliar with nanotechnology. Those who have some knowledge mainly have gotten it from TV and the Internet. The content of current media reports is perceived as fairly positive. Knowledge of scientific methods is unrelated to benefit and risk perceptions, at least when other predictors are controlled. In contrast, positive beliefs about science (e.g., its impact on economy or health) and more sophisticated epistemological beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge are moderately linked to more positive perceptions of nanotechnology. The only exception is the perception of scientific uncertainty: This is associated with less positive evaluations. Finally, higher engagement with science is associated with higher risk perceptions. These findings show that laypersons who are engaged with science and who are aware of the inherent uncertainty of scientific evidence might perceive nanotechnology in a somewhat more differentiated way, contrary to how it is portrayed in the media today.

Keywords

Risk perceptions Benefit perceptions Nanotechnology Public understanding of science Epistemological beliefs Beliefs about science Societal implications 

References

  1. Anderson A, Brossard D, Scheufele D (2010) The changing information environment for nanotechnology: online audiences and content. J Nanopart Res 12:1083–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berube DM, Cummings CL, Frith JH, Binder AR, Oldendick R (2011) Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks. J Nanopart Res 13:3089–3099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besley J (2010) Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Emerg Health Threats J 3:e8Google Scholar
  4. Besley J, Kramer V, Priest S (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18:546–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20:385–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobb MD (2011) Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. J Nanopart Res 13:1533–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobern WW, Loving CC (2002) Investigation of preservice elementary teachers’ thinking about science. J Res Sci Teach 39:1016–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conley AM, Pintrich PR, Vekiri I, Harrison D (2004) Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemp Edu Psych 29:186–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedman S, Egolf B (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24:5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gott R, Duggan S (1998) Understanding scientific evidence. In: Ratcliff M (ed) ASE guide to secondary science education. Stanley Thornes, Cheltenham, pp 92–99Google Scholar
  15. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2010) Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:2703–2715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33:167–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofer BK, Pintrich PR (eds) (2002) Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  18. HRA (Hart Research Associates, Inc) (2009) Nanotechnology, synthetic biology, & public opinion. A report of findings conducted on behalf of: Project on emerging nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/8286/. Assessed 6 May 2011
  19. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nano 4:87–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee C, Scheufele DA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: a media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal Mass Commun Q 83:819–834Google Scholar
  21. Lee C, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci Commun 27:240–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewenstein BV, Gorss J, Radin J (2005) The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the annual conference of International Communication Association, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marschall J, Rahnke M, Otto L, Maier M (2011) The representation of scientific evidence in German science TV shows and recipients’ understanding of science: results from an online field experiment. Paper presented at the annual conference of International Communication Association, Boston. http://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/landau/fb8/ikms/ikm/forschung/wiskom)
  25. Miller JD (1983) Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112(2):29–48Google Scholar
  26. National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators: 2010. National Science Foundation, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Peters EM, Burraston B, Mertz CK (2004) An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Anal 24:1349–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health. Risk Soc 9:191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pidgeon N, Herr Harthorn B, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nano 4:95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Priest S (2006) The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 8:563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nano 4:752–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein B (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nano 2:732–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schommer M (1994) Synthesizing epistemological belief research: tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educ Psych Rev 6:293–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Siegrist M (2010) Predicting the future: review of public perception studies in nanotechnology. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16:837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simons J, Zimmer R, Vierboom C, Härlen I, Hertel R, Böl G (2009) The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1555–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27:175–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stewart CO, Dickerson DL, Hotchkiss R (2009) Beliefs about science and news frames in audience evaluations of embryonic and adult stem cell research. Sci Commun 30:427–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stocklmayer SM, Bryant C (2011) Science and the public—what should people know? Int J Sci Educ B. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.543186
  42. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain. Public Underst Sci 20:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Retzbach
    • 1
  • Joachim Marschall
    • 1
  • Marion Rahnke
    • 1
  • Lukas Otto
    • 1
  • Michaela Maier
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Communication Psychology and Media EducationUniversity of Koblenz-LandauLandauGermany

Personalised recommendations