Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The introduction of different applications of nanotechnology will be informed by expert views regarding which (types of) application will be most societally acceptable. Previous research in Northern Europe has indicated that experts believe that various factors will be influential, predominant among these being public perceptions of benefit, need and consumer concern about contact with nanomaterials. These factors are thought by experts to differentiate societal acceptance and rejection of nanotechnology applications. This research utilises a larger sample of experts (N = 67) drawn from Northern America, Europe, Australasia, India and Singapore to examine differences in expert opinion regarding societal acceptance of different applications of nanotechnology within different technological environments, consumer cultures and regulatory regimes. Perceived risk and consumer concerns regarding contact with nano-particles are thought by all experts to drive rejection, and perceived benefits to influence acceptance, independent of country. Encapsulation and delivery of nutrients in food was thought to be the most likely to raise societal concerns, while targeted drug delivery was thought most likely to be accepted. Lack of differentiation between countries suggests that expert views regarding social acceptance may be homogenous, independent of local contextual factors.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Because of the specific calculations used for repeated measures ANOVA, degrees of freedom for the F test are estimated, allowing for degrees of freedom with decimals.

References

  • Anderson K, Jackson LA (2005) GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 49(3):263–281. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00306.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andree P (2002) The biopolitics of genetically modified organisms in Canada. J Can Stud 37(3):162–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith H, Slovic P (1997) Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Soc Sci Q 78(1):167–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10(4):549–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) A small matter of regulation: an international review of nanotechnology regulation. Columbia Sci Technol Law Rev 8:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruhn CM (1995) Consumer attitudes and market response to irradiated food. J Food Prot 58(2):175–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgman M, Carr C, Godden L, Gregory R, McBride M, Flander L, Maguire L (2011) Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv Lett 4(2):81–87. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00165.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter CA, Gruere GP (2003) Mandatory labeling of genetically modified food: does it really provide consumer choice? AgBioForum 6(1–2):68–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapin SL, Chapin LD (1994) Biotech or biowreck? The implications of Jurassic Park and genetic engineering. Bull Sci Technol Soc 14(1):19–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coles D, Frewer LJ (submitted) Nanotechnology applied to European food production—a review of ethical and regulatory issues

  • David K, Thompson PB (eds) (2011) What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudo A, Choi D-H, Scheufele DA (2011) Food nanotechnology in the new. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56:78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans R (2008) The sociology of expertise: the distribution of social fluency. Sociol Compass 2(1):281–298. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00062.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fife-Schaw C, Rowe G (1996) Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. Risk Anal 16(4):487–500. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01095.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9(2):127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Watson SR, Hope C (1984) Defining risk. Policy Sci 17(2):123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal 13(6):643–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181–1193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, Rowe G, Siegrist M, Vereijken C (2011a) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:442–456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Fischer ARH, Wentholt MTA, Marvin HJP, Ooms BW, Coles D, Rowe G (2011b) The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: some lessons learned. Technol Forecast Soc 78(9):1514–1525. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Kleter GA, Brennan M, Coles D, Fischer ARH, Houdebine L-M, Mora C, Millar K, Salter B (2013a) Genetically modified animals from life-science, socio-economic and ethical perspectives: examining issues in an EU policy context. New biotechnol. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2013.03.010

  • Frewer LJ, van der Lans IA, Fischer ARH, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X, van den Berg I, Zimmermann KL (2013b) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol 30:142–152

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J, Allum NC (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science 285(5426):384–387

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert C (2007) Crisis analysis: between normalization and avoidance. J Risk Res 10(7):925–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunter VJ, Harris CK (1998) Noisy winter: the DDT controversy in the years before silent spring. Rural Sociol 63(2):179–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta N, Fischer ARH, van der Lans I, Frewer LJ (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14(5):1–15. doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall C (2007) GM technology in forestry: lessons from the GM food ‘debate’. Int J Biotechnol 9(5):436–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrick CB (2005) ‘Cultures of GM’: discourses of risk and labelling of GMOs in the UK and EU. Area 37(3):286–294. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00632.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Science Commun 33(2):167–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinkela D (2005) The question of success and environmental ethics: revisiting the DDT controversy from a transnational perspective, 1967–72. Ethics Place Environ 8(2):159–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight JG, Holdsworth DK, Mather DW (2008) GM food and neophobia: connecting with the gatekeepers of consumer choice. J Sci Food Agric 88(5):739–744

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll G (2001) The “silent springs” of Rachel Carson: mass media and the origins of modern environmentalism. Public Underst Sci 10(4):403–420

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma J, Priest S (2010) Nanotechnology. Risk, and oversight: learning lessons from related emerging technologies. Risk Anal 30(11):1688–1698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten P (2011) From bio to nano: learning the lessons, interrogating the comparisons. In: David K, Thompson PB (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 107–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta MD (2004) From biotechnology to nantechnology: what can we learn from earlier technologies? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:34–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelson ES (2008) Globalization at the nano frontier: the future of nanotechnology policy in the United States, China, and India. Technol Soc 30(3–4):405–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson G, Babinard J, Josling T (2001) The domestic and regional regulatory environment. In: Nelson G (ed) Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: economics and politics. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Paarlberg RL (2002) The real threat to GM crops in poor countries: consumer and policy resistance to GM foods in rich countries. Food Policy 27(3):247–250. doi:10.1016/s0306-9192(02)00014-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmberg C, Dernis H, Miguet C (2009) Nanotechnology: an overview based on indicators and statistics. OECD science, technology and industry. Working Papers, 2009/7, OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/223147043844

  • Pollock CG (2001) Silent spring revisited: a 21st-century look at the effect of pesticides on wildlife. J Avian Med Surg 15(1):50–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakash A, Kollman KL (2003) Biopolitics in the EU and the US: a race to the bottom or convergence to the top? Int Stud Q 47(4):617–641. doi:10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00281.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler R, Kay WD (2006) The GMO-nanotech (dis)analogy? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(1):57–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sastry KR, Rashmi HB, Rao NH (2011) Nanotechnology for enhancing food security in India. Food Policy 36(3):391–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P (2004) Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal 24(5):1289–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer GC (2008) A structural theory of WTO dispute settlement: why institutional choice lies at the center of the GMO case. N Y Univ J Int Law Politics 41:1

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sparling D (2011) A framework for translating biotechnology experiences to nanotechnology. In: David K, Thompson PB (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology?: Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 176–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp J, Baumgartner H (1998) Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consum Res 25(1):78–90. doi:10.1086/209528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • te Kulve H, Konrad K, Palavicino CA, Walhout B (2013) Context matters: promises and concerns regarding nanotechnologies for water and food applications. NanoEthics 7(1):17–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson PB (2011) Nano and Bio: How are they alike? How are they different. In: David K, Thompson PB (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 125–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Pligt J (1985) Public attitudes to nuclear energy: salience and anxiety. J Environ Psychol 5(1):87–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vàzquez-Salat N, Salter B, Smets G, Houdebine LM (2012) The current state of GMO governance: are we ready for GM animals? Biotechnol Adv 30(6):1336–1343. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yawson RM, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33(4):299–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zilberman D, Schmitz A, Casterline G, Lichtenberg E, Siebert JB (1991) The economics of pesticide use and regulation. Science 253(5019):518–522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the experts for participating in this research. They would also like to thank Dr. Frans Kampers (Wageningen University, The Netherlands), Dr. Karen Kronin (Landcare Research, New Zealand), Dr. Alok Adholeya (TERI, India) and Dr. Rickey Yada (University of Guelph, Canada) for their contribution in compiling list of experts from Europe, Australasia, India and US, respectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Wageningen University, Building 201, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Nidhi Gupta & Arnout R. H. Fischer

  2. Centre for Sustainable Nanotechnology, School of Chemical & Life Sciences, Nanyang Polytechnic, 180 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 8, Singapore, 569830, Singapore

    Saji George

  3. School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Agriculture Building, Newcastle, NE1 7RU, UK

    Lynn J. Frewer

Authors
  1. Nidhi Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnout R. H. Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saji George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lynn J. Frewer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lynn J. Frewer.

Appendix

Appendix

How beneficial would an average member of the public in your country perceive Application on a five point scale, from 1 = extremely beneficial to 5 = not at all beneficial.

How risky would an average member of the public in your country perceive Application on a five point scale, from 1 = extremely risky to 5 = not at all risky.

How necessary would an average member of the public in your country perceive Application on a five point scale, from 1 = extremely necessary to 5 = not at all necessary.

In your opinion how much an average member of the public in your country would worry over coming into contact with the nanomaterials used in Application on a five point scale, 1 = extremely worried about coming into contact to 5 = not at all worried about coming into contact.

How long will an average member of the public in your country think it will take for the Application on a five point scale, 1 = already in the market; 2 = within 1 year in the market; 3 = between 2 and 3 years in the market; 4 = between 5 and 10 years in the market; 5 = will never reach the market.

The word Application referred to the five agrifood applications of nanotechnology:

(1) Targeted drug delivery (2) smart pesticides developed using nanotechnology to enhance the effectiveness or delivery of pesticides (3) encapsulation and delivery of nutrients in food (nanoencapsulated-food) (4) food packaging using nanoparticles with antimicrobial properties to increase shelf life of food products (5) development of efficient and cost effective water filtration process by using nanomaterials (water filtration).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gupta, N., Fischer, A.R.H., George, S. et al. Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments. J Nanopart Res 15, 1838 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1838-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1838-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation