Advertisement

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 4, Issue 6, pp 561–570 | Cite as

Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology

  • William Sims Bainbridge
Article

Abstract

Data from 3909 respondents to an Internet survey questionnaire provide the first insights into public perceptions of nanotechnology. Quantitative analysis of statistics about agreement and disagreement with two statements, one positive and the other negative, reveals high levels of enthusiasm for the potential benefits of nanotechnology and little concern about possible dangers. The respondents mentally connect nanotechnology with the space program, nuclear power, and cloning research, but rate it more favorably. In contrast, they do not associate nanotechnology with pseudoscience, despite its imaginative exploitation by science fiction writers. Qualitative analysis of written comments from 598 respondents indicates that many ideas about the value of nanotechnology have entered popular culture, and it provides material for an additional 108 questionnaire items that can be used in future surveys on the topic. The findings of this exploratory study can serve as benchmarks against which to compare results of future research on the evolving status of nanotechnology in society.

nanotechnology nanoscience sociology public opinion Internet questionnaire survey 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bainbridge W.S., 1989. Survey Research: A Computer-Assisted Introduction. Wadsworth, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
  2. Bainbridge W.S., 1991. Goals in Space. Suny Press, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bainbridge W.S., 2000. Religious ethnography on the World Wide Web. In: Jeffrey K. Hadden and Douglas Cowan. eds. Religion and the Internet. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.Google Scholar
  4. Bainbridge W.S., 2002. Validity of web-based surveys. In: Orville Vernon Burton. ed. Computing in the Social Sciences and Humanities. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 51-66.Google Scholar
  5. Bainbridge W.S., The future of internet. In: Philip E.N. Howard and Steve Jones. eds. The Internet and American Life. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California (in press).Google Scholar
  6. Best S.J., B. Krueger, C. Hubbard & A. Smith, 2001. An assessment of the generalizability of internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review 19: 131-145.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Commerce, 1999. Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. El Boghdady D., 2002. Ears Wide Shut: Researchers Get Punished for Telemarketers' Crimes. Washington Post, September 8, 2002; p. H1.Google Scholar
  9. Joy B., 2000. Why the Future Doesn't Need Us. Wired, April 2000.Google Scholar
  10. National Science and Technology Council (NSTC, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology), 2000. National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan. White House, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators-2002. National Science Foundation (NSB 02-01), Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  12. National Science Foundation, 2000. Women, Minorities, and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2000. National Science Foundation (NSF 00-327), Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  13. Roco M.C. & R. Tomellini, 2002. Nanotechnology: Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  14. Roco M.C., R.S. Williams & P. Alivisatos, eds., 2000. Nanotechnology Research Directions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. Roco M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, eds., 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  16. Siegel R.W., E. Hu & M.C. Roco, eds., 1999. Nanostructure Science and Technology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. Witte J.C., L.M. Amoroso & P.E.N. Howard, 2000. Method and representation in Internet-based survey tools: Mobility, community, and cultural identity in Survey 2000, Social Science Computer Review 18(2): 179-195.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Sims Bainbridge
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Information and Intelligent SystemsNational Science FoundationArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations