Public Attitudes Towards Nanotechnology-Enabled Cognitive Enhancement in the United States

  • Sean A. Hays
  • Clark A. Miller
  • Michael D. Cobb
Part of the Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 3)


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.


Consumer Product Knowledge Network Cognitive Enhancement College Entrance Exam Human Enhancement 
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.


  1. Barben, Daniel. 2010. Analyzing acceptance politics: Towards an epistemological shift in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science 19(3): 274–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Carson, John. 2007. The measure of merit: Talents, intelligence, and inequality in the French and American Republics, 1750–1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Greely, Hank et al. 2008. Reprinted as Ch. 14 in this volume.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guston, David, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Scheufele, Dietram, et al. 2009. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Walker, Gordon, et al. 1999. Risk communication, public participation, and the Seveso II Directive. Journal of Hazardous Materials 65(1–2): 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Wiesner, Mark, et al. 2006. Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. Environmental Science and Technology 40(14): 4336–4345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean A. Hays
    • 1
  • Clark A. Miller
    • 1
  • Michael D. Cobb
    • 2
  1. 1.The Center for Nanotechnology in SocietyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations