Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science

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

Abstract

In this article, we report data from an online questionnaire study with 587 respondents, representative for the adult U.S. population in terms of age, gender, and level of education. The aim of this study was to assess how interest in science and knowledge as well as beliefs about science are associated with risk and benefit perceptions of nanotechnology. The findings suggest that the U.S. public is still rather unfamiliar with nanotechnology. Those who have some knowledge mainly have gotten it from TV and the Internet. The content of current media reports is perceived as fairly positive. Knowledge of scientific methods is unrelated to benefit and risk perceptions, at least when other predictors are controlled. In contrast, positive beliefs about science (e.g., its impact on economy or health) and more sophisticated epistemological beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge are moderately linked to more positive perceptions of nanotechnology. The only exception is the perception of scientific uncertainty: This is associated with less positive evaluations. Finally, higher engagement with science is associated with higher risk perceptions. These findings show that laypersons who are engaged with science and who are aware of the inherent uncertainty of scientific evidence might perceive nanotechnology in a somewhat more differentiated way, contrary to how it is portrayed in the media today.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cronbach’s alpha indicates the internal consistency of a psychological scale and is a measure for its reliability (Cronbach 1951). Generally, values above 0.80 are desirable.

References

  • Anderson A, Brossard D, Scheufele D (2010) The changing information environment for nanotechnology: online audiences and content. J Nanopart Res 12:1083–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berube DM, Cummings CL, Frith JH, Binder AR, Oldendick R (2011) Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks. J Nanopart Res 13:3089–3099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley J (2010) Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Emerg Health Threats J 3:e8

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18:546–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20:385–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:221–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb MD (2011) Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. J Nanopart Res 13:1533–1548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobern WW, Loving CC (2002) Investigation of preservice elementary teachers’ thinking about science. J Res Sci Teach 39:1016–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley AM, Pintrich PR, Vekiri I, Harrison D (2004) Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemp Edu Psych 29:186–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman S, Egolf B (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24:5–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gott R, Duggan S (1998) Understanding scientific evidence. In: Ratcliff M (ed) ASE guide to secondary science education. Stanley Thornes, Cheltenham, pp 92–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2010) Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:2703–2715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33:167–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer BK, Pintrich PR (eds) (2002) Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • HRA (Hart Research Associates, Inc) (2009) Nanotechnology, synthetic biology, & public opinion. A report of findings conducted on behalf of: Project on emerging nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/8286/. Assessed 6 May 2011

  • Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nano 4:87–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C, Scheufele DA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: a media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal Mass Commun Q 83:819–834

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee C, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci Commun 27:240–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewenstein BV, Gorss J, Radin J (2005) The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the annual conference of International Communication Association, New York

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marschall J, Rahnke M, Otto L, Maier M (2011) The representation of scientific evidence in German science TV shows and recipients’ understanding of science: results from an online field experiment. Paper presented at the annual conference of International Communication Association, Boston. http://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/landau/fb8/ikms/ikm/forschung/wiskom)

  • Miller JD (1983) Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112(2):29–48

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators: 2010. National Science Foundation, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters EM, Burraston B, Mertz CK (2004) An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Anal 24:1349–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health. Risk Soc 9:191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Herr Harthorn B, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nano 4:95–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Priest S (2006) The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 8:563–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nano 4:752–758

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Lewenstein B (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667

    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 Nano 2:732–734

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer M (1994) Synthesizing epistemological belief research: tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educ Psych Rev 6:293–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (2010) Predicting the future: review of public perception studies in nanotechnology. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16:837–846

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27:59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons J, Zimmer R, Vierboom C, Härlen I, Hertel R, Böl G (2009) The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1555–1571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27:175–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart CO, Dickerson DL, Hotchkiss R (2009) Beliefs about science and news frames in audience evaluations of embryonic and adult stem cell research. Sci Commun 30:427–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocklmayer SM, Bryant C (2011) Science and the public—what should people know? Int J Sci Educ B. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.543186

  • Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12:373–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain. Public Underst Sci 20:195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a grant from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Communication Psychology and Media Education, University of Koblenz-Landau, Fortstr. 7, 76829, Landau, Germany

    Andrea Retzbach, Joachim Marschall, Marion Rahnke, Lukas Otto & Michaela Maier

Authors
  1. Andrea Retzbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joachim Marschall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marion Rahnke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lukas Otto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michaela Maier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Retzbach.

Appendix

Appendix

Level of education

What is your highest level of education?

(Less than high school graduate; High school graduate; Some college/technical school/associates degree; College graduate/some post graduate; Masters degree; Professional school degree (e.g., MD, DDS, DVM); Doctorate degree)

Information sources

If you have received information about nanotechnology, from where?

(Television; Radio; Internet; Newspapers or magazines; Books; Conversations with friends or acquaintances; Other)

Media coverage and the position of scientists

What do you think? Is nanotechnology covered in a more positive or negative light in the mass media?

(I never heard about nanotechnology in mass media; More positive; More negative; Balanced coverage; I don’t know)

In my opinion, the media coverage about nanotechnology reflects the position of scientific experts.

(1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = tend to disagree; 4 = tend to agree; 5 = agree; 6 = strongly agree; I don’t know)

Benefit perceptions

In my opinion, nanotechnology…

… can help to cure diseases.

… can help to improve everyday products.

… can help to solve environmental problems.

(1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = tend to disagree; 4 = tend to agree; 5 = agree; 6 = strongly agree)

Risk perceptions

In my opinion, nanotechnology…

… is a threat to the environment.

… is a threat to my health.

… is a threat to mankind due to dangerous new weapons.

(1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = tend to disagree; 4 = tend to agree; 5 = agree; 6 = strongly agree)

Familiarity with nanotechnology

Have you ever heard about nanotechnology, and if so, how much knowledge do you have about it? I have…

(1 = never heard about it; 2 = very little knowledge; 3 = little knowledge; 4 = some knowledge; 5 = good knowledge; 6 = very good knowledge)

Scientific training

I received a professional training in science.

(1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = tend to disagree; 4 = tend to agree; 5 = agree; 6 = strongly agree)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Retzbach, A., Marschall, J., Rahnke, M. et al. Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. J Nanopart Res 13, 6231–6244 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0582-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0582-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation