Advertisement

How the Risks of Nanotechnology Are Perceived

  • Daniel BoyEmail author
  • Solange Martin
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Risk Perception Social Acceptability Objective Risk Disaster Scenario European Expert 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Drexler: Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. (Anchor Books, New York 1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anonymous: Historia von D. Johann Fausten. (Johann Spies, Frankfurt 1587)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    D. Boy: Pourquoi avons-nous peur de la technologie? (Presses de Sciences Po, Paris 2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Peretti-Watel: Sociologie du risque. (Armand Colin, Paris 2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    IRSN, PERPLEX (perception des risques par le public et les experts): Observatoire de l’opinion sur les risques et la sécurité (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Boy: Les attitudes du public à l’égard de la science. Sofres, L’Etat de l’Opinion (2002), pp. 167–182Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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. 1–14Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    SKEP ERA-net D6.3: Summary of perceptions and science needs of policy makers, operational staff, scientists, experts and stakeholders. ADEME, MEDAD (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    SKEP ERA-net D6.4: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences: Environmental opportunities and risks of converging technologies. ADEME, MEEDDAT (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    U. Beck: La société du risque, sur la voie d’une autre modernité. (Paris, Aubier 2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    SKEP ERA-net D6.2: Converging technologies and environmental regulations. Literature review. ADEME, MEDD (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de recherches politiques de Sciences Po CEVIPOFParisFrance
  2. 2.Sciences-PoParisFrance
  3. 3.Paris Cedex 07France
  4. 4.Agence de l’Environnement de la Maîtrise de l’Energie (ADEME)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations