Abstract
Anticipatory governance of emergent technologies depends on a comprehensive understanding of the values in society that shape public understanding of new and emerging technologies, as well as their response to related technologies already available within the culture (Barben et al. 2008; Guston and Sarewitz 2002). One method of contributing to the understanding of public values is to measure them directly through survey research. In this chapter, we present results from a 2008 national survey about nanotechnology and human enhancements. More specifically, the survey was designed to evaluate the public’s support for potential nano-enabled cognitive enhancement technologies. To the best of our knowledge, it was the first nationally representative survey about human enhancements to be conducted in the United States. Where appropriate, we also report some preliminary findings from a follow-up survey in 2010 that supplement our analysis of the 2008 study, but we intend to report the bulk of the 2010 survey elsewhere.
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
References
Barben, Daniel. 2010. Analyzing acceptance politics: Towards an epistemological shift in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science 19(3): 274–292.
Barben, Daniel, et al. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. E. Hackett et al. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Carson, John. 2007. The measure of merit: Talents, intelligence, and inequality in the French and American Republics, 1750–1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Corley, Elizabeth, and Dietram Scheufele. 2010. Outreach gone wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving key audiences behind. Scientist 24(1): 22.
Greely, Hank et al. 2008. Reprinted as Ch. 14 in this volume.
Guston, David, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109.
Scheufele, Dietram, and Bruce Lewenstein. 2005. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7(6): 659–667.
Scheufele, Dietram, et al. 2009. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 91–94.
Walker, Gordon, et al. 1999. Risk communication, public participation, and the Seveso II Directive. Journal of Hazardous Materials 65(1–2): 179–190.
Wiesner, Mark, et al. 2006. Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Environmental Science and Technology 40(14): 4336–4345.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Q1. Recently there has been some talk about new technologies usually referred to as nanotechnology, or nanotech for short. How much have you heard or seen about this topic? Using a 10 point scale with 1 being nothing at all and 10 being very much, which number between 1 and 10 would best represent how much you have heard, read or seen about nanotechnology?
Q2. Now I would like to know which of the following areas, if any, you associate with nanotechnology and its potential uses. Do you associate nanotech with: (a) consumer products, (b) machines and computers, (c) brain research, and (d) biological engineering?
Q3. For the following questions, we would like you to think about nanotechnology as new technologies that allow scientists to manipulate materials at the level of tiny molecules. Recently there has been some talk about using nanotechnology to enhance human mental, emotional, or physical abilities. Using a 10 point scale with 1 being nothing at all and 10 being very much, which number between 1 and 10 would best represent how much you have heard, read or seen about using nanotechnology to enhance human mental, emotional, or physical abilities?
Q4. How important to you is the issue of enhancing human mental, emotional, and physical abilities? Would you say very important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, or not at all important?
Q5. What do you think about the risks and benefits of using nanotechnology for human enhancement? Do you think the risks of using nanotechnology for human enhancement will outweigh its benefits, the risks and benefits will be about equal, or will the benefits outweigh its risks?
Q6. How much confidence do you have in (a) the federal government or (b) the business industry protecting the public from significant risks associated with nanotechnology? Would you say you have no confidence, very little confidence, some confidence, quite a bit of confidence, or complete confidence?
Q7. Some people trust the following people and institutions to balance the risks and benefits of human enhancement, while other people do not trust these institutions to balance the risks and benefits. I will read a list of these people and institutions, and for each one, I would like you to tell me how much YOU trust them to balance the risks and benefits of human enhancement. First, the federal government. Would you say you trust the federal government not at all, not very much, somewhat, very much, or completely? (a) The federal government; (b) the mass media; (c) business or industry scientists; (d) environmental organizations; (e) university scientists; (f) clergy or religious persons.
Q8a. One possible use of nanotechnology is to connect a video camera to the human brain to allow artificial eyesight. Would you support or oppose this use of nanotechnology? Do you feel that this use of nanotechnology is morally acceptable or morally unacceptable? How strongly do you feel this way? Strongly or not very strongly?
Q8b. One possible use of nanotechnology is to connect a video camera to the human brain to allow artificial eyesight. This might allow doctors to cure blindness, or soldiers to improve their vision on the battlefield. Would you support or oppose this use of nanotechnology? Do you feel that this use of nanotechnology is morally acceptable or morally unacceptable? How strongly do you feel this way? Strongly or not very strongly?
Q9a. The next questions are about how much you support or oppose certain kinds of human enhancements that might 1 day be possible. First, the administration of drugs to prisoners to prevent prison escapes. Would you say you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this practice, or are you neutral?
Q9b. Next, the use of battlefield computer implants, to help soldiers perform better.
Q9c. The use of medical devices to detect changes in human biomarkers such as blood pressure or protein levels to catch diseases before they become dangerous.
Q9d. The use of implants to transmit computer information to the brain while asleep, or to plug in to virtual realities on the Internet?
Q10a. Getting a job? Would you be very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely to allow your child to seek enhancements in order to get a job, or do you not have an opinion?
Q10b. Competing in amateur team sports? Would you be very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely to allow your child to seek enhancements in order to compete in amateur team sports, or do you not have an opinion?
Q10c. Taking college entrance exams? Would you be very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely to allow your child to seek enhancements in order to take college entrance exams, or do you not have an opinion?
Q10d. Running for public office? Would you be very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely to allow your child to seek enhancements in order to run for public office, or do you not have an opinion?
Q11. Do you think that when human enhancements based on new technologies are brought to the market that they will be affordable for most Americans, quite costly for the average American, or available to only the wealthiest Americans?
Q12. If it is very expensive to obtain human enhancements, how should we decide who receives them? Do you think a person’s wealth should determine access to them, or should the government guarantee everyone has equal access to these enhancements?
Q13. Once they become available, should medical insurance be required to cover most kinds of human enhancement, or should people that want enhancements have to pay out of their own pocket?
Q14. How worried are you that you and your family will not be able to afford drugs and other treatments for human enhancements once they become available? Are you very worried, somewhat worried, only worried a little, or not worried at all?
Q15. Now we have some questions about some of your general views about American society and how it works. I will be reading some statements. After hearing each statement, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?
a.The government interferes far too much in our everyday lives.
b.It is not the government’s business to try to protect people from themselves.
c.People should be able to rely on the government for help when they need it.
d.Our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal.
e.We have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country.
f.Discrimination against minorities is still a very serious problem in our society.
Q16. Next, I would like to ask about your feelings about these new enhancement technologies.
a.Do you think we should embrace new enhancement technologies to improve humankind or should we avoid playing God with new enhancement technologies?
b.According to university scientists, nanotechnologies used for human enhancements will make us smarter, healthier, and live longer lives. What do you think? Should we embrace new enhancement technologies to improve humankind or should we avoid playing God with new enhancement technologies?
c.According to religious figures, nanotechnologies used for human enhancements are like playing God and should be avoided. What do you think? Should we embrace new enhancement technologies to improve humankind or should we avoid playing God with new enhancement technologies?
d.According to university scientists, nanotechnologies used for human enhancements will make us smarter, healthier, and live longer lives. According to religious figures, however, nanotechnologies used for human enhancements are like playing God and should be avoided. What do you think? Should we embrace new enhancement technologies to improve humankind or should we avoid playing God with new enhancement technologies?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hays, S.A., Miller, C.A., Cobb, M.D. (2013). Public Attitudes Towards Nanotechnology-Enabled Cognitive Enhancement in the United States. In: Hays, S., Robert, J., Miller, C., Bennett, I. (eds) Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1787-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1787-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1786-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1787-9
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)