Abstract
In the ongoing debate about new technologies, from bioethics to GMOs and nanotechnologies, risk perception – by individuals – is understood by opposition to objective assessment of risk – by science. The absence of objective risks and the presence of perceived risks are often stressed by one side or the other, the first by those who support the development of such technologies, the second by those who insist upon regulatory control.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This originated from a traditional sixteenth century German story [3], and inspired a great many works of fiction from Marlowe to Goethe, including Jarry, Valery, Giono, Pessoa Mann, Butor, and others. It is the story of a doctor who, from his earliest days, dreams of possessing universal knowledge. Of course, he is unable to do this, and on the brink of suicide, he accepts a pact with the devil, in the form of Mephistopheles: he will achieve all his Promethean desires provided that he relinquishes his soul. He accepts.
- 2.
The first compilations of criteria structuring individual risk perception were assembled by Starr in 1969 and Slovic in 1977. They have since been supplemented, in particular by Covello [9].
- 3.
The survey was carried out on behalf of the EDF and the Palais de la Découverte of 18–30 October 2007 on a sample of 1 000 people representative of the French population, aged 18 and above, questioned face to face at their home by TNS-Sofres interviewers. Quota method (sex, age, socio-professional category of the head of the household) and stratification by region and urban category.
- 4.
Flash Eurobarometer 239, Young People and Science, carried out from 9 to 13 September 2008 on a sample of 25 000 young people aged between 15 and 25, from 27 countries of the European Union. The interviews were mostly by telephone and included around 1 000 people per country.
- 5.
The European experts (748 professionals in one of the relevant areas: nanotechnology, biotechnology, ICT, and cognitive sciences) were identified through a review of the literature (SKEP, D6.2, 2008) and communication of the staff in charge of nanotechnology by the institutional partners of ERA-net SKEP. Those questioned were mainly scientists (66%, including 57.5% in the public sector and 8.5% in the private sector). Staff from the public administration of these technologies (ministries, state agencies, or European Commission) constitute the other large group making up the sample (23.5%). The civil society, including associations, unions, and elected representatives, together with the world of industry, are poorly represented. Note also that 82% of the sample had had an education in the hard sciences and 18% in the human sciences. Women represent 21% of the sample.A total of 92% of those questioned declared that they were expressing a personal opinion, and not the general opinion of their organisation or institution.
- 6.
This covers the risk of harmful elements resulting from nanotechnology being disseminated in the environment (particularly if they are persistent or prone to bioaccumulation) during production, use, or the final stage of the life cycle.
- 7.
This is uncertainty that cannot be described probabilistically because the list of possible future states of the world is incomplete.
References
E. Drexler: Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. (Anchor Books, New York 1986)
B. Joy: Why the future doesn’t need us. Our most powerful 21st-century technologies – robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech – are threatening to make humans an endangered species. Wired Magazine, San Francisco, California (April 2000)
Anonymous: Historia von D. Johann Fausten. (Johann Spies, Frankfurt 1587)
D. Boy: Pourquoi avons-nous peur de la technologie? (Presses de Sciences Po, Paris 2007)
P. Peretti-Watel: Sociologie du risque. (Armand Colin, Paris 2000)
IRSN, PERPLEX (perception des risques par le public et les experts): Observatoire de l’opinion sur les risques et la sécurité (2007)
D. Boy: Les attitudes du public à l’égard de la science. Sofres, L’Etat de l’Opinion (2002), pp. 167–182
V.T. Covello, F.W. Allen: Social and behavioral research on risk: Uses in risk management decision-making. In: NATO ASI Series G, Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment and Risk Analysis, Vol. 4. (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York 1985), pp. 1–14
SKEP ERA-net D6.3: Summary of perceptions and science needs of policy makers, operational staff, scientists, experts and stakeholders. ADEME, MEDAD (2008)
SKEP ERA-net D6.4: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences: Environmental opportunities and risks of converging technologies. ADEME, MEEDDAT (2008)
U. Beck: La société du risque, sur la voie d’une autre modernité. (Paris, Aubier 2001)
SKEP ERA-net D6.2: Converging technologies and environmental regulations. Literature review. ADEME, MEDD (2008)
C. Henry: An existence theorem for a class of differential equations with multivalued right-hand side. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 41, 179–186 (1973)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boy, D., Martin, S. (2011). How the Risks of Nanotechnology Are Perceived. In: Houdy, P., Lahmani, M., Marano, F. (eds) Nanoethics and Nanotoxicology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20177-6_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20177-6_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20176-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20177-6
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)