Scientists worry about some risks more than the public

Nature Nanotechnology

Volumn 2, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 732-734

  Scheufele, Dietram A ^a   Corley, Elizabeth A ^b   Dunwoody, Sharon ^a   Shih, Tsung Jen ^a   Hillback, Elliott ^a   Guston, David H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

GENERAL PUBLICS; HEALTH IMPACT; NATIONAL SURVEYS; POTENTIAL BENEFITS;

PUBLIC RISKS;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SCIENTIST;

EID: 36849040063     PISSN: 17483387     EISSN: 17483395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2007.392     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Savadori, L. et al. Risk Analysis 24, 1289-1299 (2004).
2. Kepplinger, H. M., Ehmig, S. C. & Ahlheim, C. Gentechnik im Widerstreit [The Controversies Surrounding Genetic Engineering] (Campus, Frankfurt, 1991).
3. Sjöberg, L. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 1-9 (Winter 1999).
4. Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A & Kastenholz, H. Nature Nanotech. 2, 67 (2007).
5. Maynard, A. D. et al. Nature 444, 267-269 (2006).
6. RS policy document 35/06 (The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2006); www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=22538
7. Weiss, R. The Washington Post A01 (23 November 2006).
8. Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2007); available at www.nanotechproject.org/138/9252007-poll-reveals-public-awareness- ofnanotechstuck-at-low-level.
9. Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. J. Nanopart. Res. 7, 659-667 (2005).
10. Scheufele, D. A. Nano Today 2, 48 (October 2007).
11. Friedman, S. M. & Egolf, B. P IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 24, 5-11 (Winter 2005).
12. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T, Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. Nature Mater. 3, 496 (2004).
13. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N. F. Maldera, J. & Turner, S. Nature Nanotech. 1, 153-155 (2006).
14. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Cutcome Rates for Surveys (American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lenexa, Kansas, 2006).
15. Dillman, D. A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2nd edn (Wiley, New York, 2007).
16. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P. & Schoeneck, D. J. J. Nanopart. Res. (in the press).