Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last decade social scientific researchers have examined how the public perceives risks associated with nanotechnology. The body of literature that has emerged has been methodologically diverse. The findings have confirmed that some publics perceive nanotechnology as riskier than others, experts feel nanotechnology is less risky than the public does, and despite risks the public is optimistic about nanotechnology development. However, the extant literature on nanotechnology and risk suffers from sometimes widely divergent findings and has failed to provide a detailed picture of how the public actually feels about nanotechnology risks when compared to other risks. This study addresses the deficiencies in the literature by providing a comparative approach to gauging nanotechnology risks. The findings show that the public does not fear nanotechnology compared to other risks. Out of 24 risks presented to the participants, nanotechnology ranked 19th in terms of overall risk and 20th in terms of “high risk.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As noted by Dillman et al. (2008), two factors that could have affected this response rate were its length and the difficulty of the questions. The topic “science and emerging technology” may have been intimidating or uninteresting to the general public.

  2. In the calculations of these mean scores, high risk responses were give a value of 4; moderate risk a 3; slight risk a 2; and almost no health risk a 1. Higher mean scores represent a greater perceived health risk.

References

  • Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balbus JM, Florini K, Denison RA, Walsh SA (2007) Protecting workers and the environment: an environmental NGO’s perspective on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 9:11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berube DM, Cummings CL, Cacciatore M, Scheufele D, Kalin J (2010a) Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: expert Delphi survey. Nanotoxicology. doi:10.3109/17435390.2010.521633

  • Berube DM, Faber B, Scheufele DA, Cummings CL, Gardner GE, Martin KN, Martin MS, Temple NM (2010b) Communicating risk in the 21st century: The case of nanotechnology. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Besley J, Kramer V, Priest S (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risk, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10:549–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder AR, Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Shaw BR, Corley EA (2011). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Underst Sci. doi: 10.1177/0963662510390159

  • Bishop G, Oldebdick RW, Tuchfarber AJ (1984) What must my interest in politics be if I just told you ‘I don’t know”? Public Opin Quart 53:510–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMRB Social Research (2004) Nanotechnology: views of the general public, quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the nanotechnology study. BMRB International Report 45101, London

  • Bundesinstitut Fur Robiew (2007) Majority of consumers view the development of nanotechnology favourably. Bundesinstitut Fur Robiew Press Release 23. http://www.bfr.bund.de/cd/10563. Accessed 1 October 2010

  • Burnstein E, Vinokur A (1975) When a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts. J Exp Soc Psychol 9:123–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burri RV, Belluci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10:387–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2009). From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci doi: 10.1177/0963662509347815

  • Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1:153–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2008) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel E (2005) In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnologies among Canadian and US publics. J Nanotechnol Online. http://www.azonano.com/Details.as. Accessed 1 October 2010

  • Entin EE, Serfaty JD, Forester J (1989) Sequential processing of information from multiple sources. Technical Report TR-277- 1, Alphatech Inc., Burlington

  • European Commission. (2005) Europeans, science and technology. Eurobarometer special survey 154, organized and supervised by DG Press and Communication, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2010

  • Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14:1101–1108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fox CR, Irwin JR (1998) The role of context in the communication of uncertain beliefs. Basic Appl Soc Psych 20:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G, Eyck TA, Jackson J, Veltri G (2004) From our readers: public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater 3:496

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG) http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report105.pdf. Accessed 29 September 2010

  • Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL (eds) Syntax and semantics, vol 3: Speech acts. Academic, New York, pp 95–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart (2006) Public awareness of nano grows––majority remain unaware. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://nanotechproject.org/78/public-awareness-of-nano-grows-but-majority-unaware. Accessed 28 September 2010

  • Hart (2007) Awareness of and attitude toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://www.nanotechproject.org/138/9252007-poll-reveals-public-awareness-of-nanotech-stuck-at-low-level. Accessed 28 September 2010

  • Hart (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/final-synbioreport.pdf. Accessed 29 September 2010

  • Hart (2009) Nanotechnology, synthetic biology and public opinion. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/8286/. Accessed 29 September 2010

  • Hart (2010) Awareness and impression of synthetic biology. Peter D. Hart and Associates. http://bio.org/ind/syntheticbiology/hart2010report_final.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2010

  • In science we trust (2010) In science we trust: poll results on how you feel about science. Sci Amer. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-science-we-trust-poll. Accessed 1 October 2010

  • Kahan DM (2009) Nanotechnology and society: the evolution of risk perceptions. Nat Nanotechnol 4:705–706. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D (2009) Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreyling W, Semmler-Behnke M, Moller W (2006) Health implications of nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 8:543–562

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther H, Slovic P (1996) Science, values, and risk. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 545:116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine T (2005) Confirmatory factor analysis and scale validation in communication research. Commun Res Rep 22:335–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor DG, Slovic P, Morgan MG (1994) Perceptions of risks from electromagnetic fields: a psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk Anal 14:815–848

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221–241. doi:10.1177/0963662506056993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison JT (2009) Evaluating factor analysis decisions for scale design in communication research. Commun M Meas 3:195–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mussweiler T, Strack F (2001) The semantic of anchoring. Organ Behav Hum Dec 86:234–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park H, Daley R, Lemus D (2002) The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Hum Comm Res 28:562–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2009) Risk perceptions starting to shift?. U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11–20. doi:10.1007/s11051-009-9789-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robichaud CO, Tanzil D, Weilenmann U, Wiesner MR (2005) Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environ Sci Technol 39:8985–8994

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 5:181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CE, Conti J, Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667. doi:10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–734. doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.392

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Wiek A, Helland A, Kastenholz H (2007) Risks and nanotechnology: the public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nat Nanotechnol 2:67. doi:10.1038/nnano.2007.10

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • TA Swiss-Centre for Technology Assessment (2006) Public reactions to nanotechnology in Switzerland: report on Publifocus discussion forum “nanotechnology, health and environment”. http://www.ta-swiss.ch/e/them_nano_pfna.html. Accessed 26 September 2010

  • Tourangeau R, Rasinski K, Bradburn N, D’Andrade R (1989) Carryover effects in attitude surveys. Public Opin Quart 53:495–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau R, Rips LJ, Rasinski KA (2000) The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 3:207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitale DC, Armenakis AA, Field HS (2008) Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods for organizational diagnosis: possible priming effects? J Mix Method Res 2:87–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson T, Hodges S (1991) Attitudes as temporary constructs. In: Tesser J, Martin L (eds) The construction of social judgment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 37–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaller J, Feldman S (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions versus revealing preferences. Am J Polit Sci 36:579–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation NSF 0809470, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive toxicology and Public Engagement. All opinions expressed within are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation, North Carolina State University or the University of South Carolina.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Public Communication of Science and Technology Project, Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media Program, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    David M. Berube

  2. Public Communication of Science and Technology Project, Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media Program, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Christopher L. Cummings & Jordan H. Frith

  3. Department of Communication, Public Communication of Science and Technology Project, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Andrew R. Binder

  4. Department of Government and International Studies and Executive Director, Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Robert Oldendick

Authors
  1. David M. Berube
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher L. Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jordan H. Frith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew R. Binder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert Oldendick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Berube.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berube, D.M., Cummings, C.L., Frith, J.H. et al. Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks. J Nanopart Res 13, 3089–3099 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0325-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0325-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation