Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: How young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments

Health, Risk and Society

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 159-171

  Nerlich, Brigitte ^a   Clarke, David D ^a   Ulph, Fiona ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Medicine; Nanotechnology; Public understanding of science; Risk; Vignette study

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

ARTHRITIS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EFFICACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; NANOMEDICINE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PARTICLE SIZE; REPEATED DRUG DOSE; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; STUDENT ATTITUDE; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

EID: 34347246313     PISSN: 13698575     EISSN: 14698331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13698570701306856     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bainbridge, W. S. (2002) Public attitudes towards nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4, pp. 561-570.
2. Bainbridge, W. S. (2004) Sociocultural meanings of nanotechnology: Research methodologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, pp. 285-299.
3. Bauer, M. W. (2005) Distinguishing 'red' and 'green' biotechnology: Cultivation effects of the elite press. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17:1, pp. 63-89.
4. BMRB Social Research (2004) Nanotechnology: Views of the general public, Quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the nanotechnology study
5. Cobb, M. D. and Macoubrie, J. (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, pp. 395-405.
6. Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A. and Thomas, G. P. (1989) The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, pp. 11-14.
7. ESF Forward Look on Nanomedicine (2005)The European Science Foundation and the European Medical Research Councils, Brussels
8. ESRC Social Science Week (2004) Is Nanotech the Next GM?: A seminar as part of ESRC Social Science Week, The Royal Society, London
9. Gaskell, G., Eyck, T. Ten, Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. (2004) Public attitudes to nanotech in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials, 3:8, p. 496.
10. Gaskell, G., Eyck, T. Ten, Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 14, pp. 81-90.
11. Hansen, A. and Dickinson, R. (1992) Science coverage in the British mass media: Media output and source input. Communications, 17:3, pp. 365-377.
12. Jones, M. G., Howe, A. and Rua, M. J. (2000) Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84:2, pp. 180-192.
13. Lee, C.- J., Scheufele, D. A. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2005) Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, pp. 240-267.
14. Neresini, F. (2006) Starting off on the wrong foot: The public perception of nanotechnology and the deficit model. Nanotechnology Perception, 2, pp. 189-195.
15. Nerlich, B. (2005) From Nautilus to Nanobo(a)ts: The visual construction of nanoscience. AZojono - Journal of Nanotechnology
16. Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D. and Champness, N. (2007) Children's perception of nanotechnology: A classroom study. Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education: Issues, Trends and Future Directions, American Scientific Publishers, Valencia, CA
17. Spence, A. and Townsend, E. (2006) Implicit attitudes towards Genetically Modified (GM) foods: A comparison of context-free and context-dependent evaluations. Appetite, 46, pp. 67-74.
18. Townsend, E. (2006) Affective influences on risk perceptions of, and attitudes toward, genetically modified food. Journal of Risk Research, 9:2, pp. 125-139.
19. Townsend, E., Clarke, D. D. and Travis, B. (2004) Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 24, pp. 1369-1384.
20. Weinburgh, M. (1995) Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, pp. 387-398.