Avoiding the trust deficit: Public engagement, values, the precautionary principle and the future of nanotechnology

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 37-48

  Stebbing, Margaret ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Nanotechnology; Precautionary principle; Risk communication; Risk perception; Sustainability; Trust; Values

Indexed keywords

EID: 60449095312     PISSN: 11767529     EISSN: 18724353     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-009-9142-9     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. A. Alaszewski P. Brown 2007 Risk, uncertainty and knowledge Health Risk & Society 9 1 1 10 doi:10.1080/13698570601183033
2. Australian Centre for Emerging Technologies & Society. 2007. The Swinburne national technology and society monitor 2007. Melbourne, Australia.
3. Q. Balzano A.R. Sheppard 2002 The influence of the precautionary principle on science-based decision-making: Questionable applications to risks of radiofrequency fields Journal of Risk Research 5 4 351 369 doi:10.1080/13669870210154485
4. P. Barrieu B. Sinclair-Desgagne 2006 On precautionary policies Management Science 52 8 1145 1154 doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0527
5. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Wiltshire, Great Britain: Sage Publications.
6. U. Beck W. Bonss C. Lau 2003 The theory of reflexive modernization Theory, Culture & Society 20 2 1 33 doi:10.1177/0263276403020002001
7. BMRB Social Research. 2004. Nanotechnology: Views of the general public. London: BMRB.
8. D. Bowman L. Ludlow 2009 Filling the information void: Using public registries as a tool in nanotechnologies regulation Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 1 26 36 doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9134-9
9. Bruns, B. 2003. Participation in nanotechnology: Methods and challenges. http://www.bryanbruns.com/bruns-p2nano.pdf (Accessed 10 January 2009).
10. A. Burgess 2002 Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts Health Risk & Society 4 2 175 188 doi:10.1080/13698570220137051
11. Burgess, A. 2004. Cellular phones, public fears, and a culture of precaution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. B.R. Burgi T. Pradeep 2006 Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology in developing countries Current Science 90 5 645 658
13. M.D. Cobb J. Macoubrie 2004 Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6 395 405 doi:10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4
14. Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2000. White paper on food safety. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
15. Marsha J. Tayson Darling 2006 Gender, new technologies and development Development 49 4 23 27 doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100318
16. Davis, L., and S. McKay. 1996. Structures and strategies: An introduction to academic writing. South Melbourne: MacMillan Education Australia.
17. P. Dawson D. Buchanan 2005 The way it really happened: Competing narratives in the political process of technological change Human Relations 58 7 845 865 doi:10.1177/0018726705057807
18. M. Deblonde M. Van Oudheusen J. Evers L. Goorden 2008 Co-creating nano-imaginaries: report of a Delphi-Exercise Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28 5 372 389 doi:10.1177/0270467608322591
19. H. Dietrich R. Schibeci 2003 Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 12 4 381 401 doi:10.1177/ 0963662503124004
20. Douglas, M. 1992. Risk and blame-essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.
21. M. Douglas A. Wildavsky 1982 How can we know the risks we face? Why risk selection is a social process Risk Analysis 2 2 49 58 doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924. 1982.tb01365.x
22. Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1982b. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. London: University of California Press.
23. Einsiedel, Edna. 2005. In the public eye: The early landscape of nanotechnology among Canadian and the U.S. Publics. Journal of Nanotechnology Online, 1 (December 2005).
24. European Commission. 2005. Social values, science and technology. 225/Wave 63.1-TNS Opinion & Social. Brussels: European Commission.
25. Thomas Faunce Katherine Murray Hitoshi Nasu Diana Bowman 2008 Sunscreen safety: The precautionary principle, the Australian therapeutic goods administration and nanoparticles in sunscreens NanoEthics 2 3 231 240 doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0041-z
26. M.L. Finucane J.L. Holup 2006 Risk as value: Combining affect and analysis in risk judgments Journal of Risk Research 9 2 141 164 doi:10.1080/13669870500166930
27. Melissa L. Finucane Theresa A. Satterfield 2005 Risk as narrative value: a theoretical framework for facilitating the biotechnology debate International Journal of Biotechnology 7 1,2,3 128 146
28. M.L. Finucane A. Alhakami P. Slovic S.M. Johnson 2000 The Affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13 1 17
29. R. Flynn 2002 Clinical governance and governmentality Health Risk & Society 4 2 155 173 doi:10.1080/13698570220137042
30. Flynn, J. 2003. Nuclear stigma. In The social amplification of risk, ed. N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, 326-354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Frewer, L.J. 2003. Trust, transparency, and social context: implications for social amplification of risk. In The social amplification of risk, ed. N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, 123-137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Friends of the Earth Australia & Friends of the Earth United States. 2006. Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: Small ingredients, big risks [online]. http://nano.foe.org.au [Accessed Jan 2009].
33. Fyfe, M. 2008. Holidaying feds leave bathers waiting for suspect sunscreen list. Age. December 28.
34. G. Gaskell T. Ten Eyck J. Jackson G. Veltri 2005 Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 14 81 90 doi:10.1177/0963662505048949
35. Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University.
36. R. Gregory P. Slovic 1997 A constructive approach to environmental valuation Ecological Economics 21 175 181 doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00104-8
37. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP). 2000. Mobile phones and health. In Chairman, independent expert group on mobile phones, ed. W. Stewart. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board.
38. N. Invernizzi G. Foladori 2006 Nanomedicine, poverty and development Development 49 4 114 118 doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100301
39. D. Jamieson D. Wartenburg 2001 The precautionary principle and electric and magnetic fields American Journal of Public Health 91 9 1355 1358 doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.9.1355
40. Kahan, D.M., P. Slovic, D. Braman, J. John Gastil, and Geoffrey Cohen. 2007. Nanotechnoogy Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Law School.
41. Kasperson, R.E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H.S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J.X. Kasperson, and S. Ratick. 1998. The importance of the media and the social amplification of risk - the social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. In Risk and modern society, ed. R.E. Lofstedt, and L. Frewer, 149-162. London: Earthscan.
42. Kemshall, H. 2006. Crime and risk. In Risk in social science, ed. P. Taylor-Gooby, and J.O. Zinn, 94-116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. D Kriebel J. Tickner 2001 Reenergising public health through precaution American Journal of Public Health 91 9 1351 1355 doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.9.1351
44. M. Leggett M. Finlay 2001 Science, story, and image: A new approach to crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon Public Understanding of Science 10 2 157 171 doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/2/301
45. G.F. Loewenstein E.U. Weber C. Hsee N. Welch 2001 Risk as feelings Psychological Bulletin 127 2 267 286 doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
46. R. Lofstedt 2003 Risk communication: Pitfalls and promises European Review 11 3 417 435 doi:10.1017/S106279870300036X
47. Lofstedt, R.E. 2005. Risk management in post-trust societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
48. D. Lupton J. Tulloch 2002 Risk is part of your life: Risk epistemologies among a group of Australians Sociology 36 2 317 334 doi:10.1177/ 0038038502036002005
49. MacGibbon, Ainslie. 2008. Slip, slop, slap in the face: Concern over sunscreen chemicals. The Sydney Morning Herald, December 4.
50. P. Macnaghten M.B. Kearnes B. Wynne 2005 Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27 2 268 291 doi:10.1177/1075547005281531
51. J. Macoubrie 2006 Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government Public Understanding of Science 15 221 241 doi:10.1177/ 0963662506056993
52. Market Attitude Research Services. 2008. Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology - trends 2005-2008 [online]. http://www.innovation. gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Pages/NanotechnologyPublications.aspx [Accessed 19 Nov 2008].
53. T.L. McDaniels 1998 Ten propositions for untangling descriptive and prescriptive lessons in risk perception findings Reliability Engineering & System Safety 59 1 129 134 doi:10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00133-6
54. M. Mekel 2006 Nanotechnologies: Small science, big potential and bigger issues Development 49 4 47 53 doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100296
55. A. Mittal 2006 Food security: Empty promises of technological solutions Development 49 4 33 38 doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100295
56. A. Mnyusiwalla A. Daar P.A. Singer 2003 "Mind the gap": Science and ethics in nanotechnology Nanotechnology 14 R9 R13 doi:10.1088/0957-4484/14/ 3/201
57. P. Mooney 2006 Hype and hope: A past and future perspective on new technologies for development Development 49 4 16 22 doi:10.1057/palgrave. development.1100305
58. Murray, Kirsten. 2008. Nano-tech sunscreen presents potential health risk. ABC News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. December 18.
59. J. Palfreman 2006 A tale of two fears: Exploring media depictions of nuclear power and global warming Review of Policy Research 23 1 23 43 doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00184.x
60. Phoenix, C., and M. Treder. 2006. Applying the precautionary principle to nanotechnology [online]. Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. Available from: http://www.crnano.org/precautionary.htm [Accessed 2006].
61. N. Pidgeon Tee Rogers-Hayden 2007 Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or "upstream engagement"? Health Risk & Society 9 2 191 210 doi:10.1080/13698570701306906
62. Pidgeon, N., R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic. 2003. The social amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63. Susanna Hornig. Priest Heinz Bonfadelli M Rusanen 2003 The "trust gap" hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors Risk Analysis 23 4 751 766 doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00353
64. G. Rowe T. Horlick-Jones J. Walls W. Poortinga N.F. Pidgeon 2008 Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 17 4 419 441 doi:10.1177/0963662506075351
65. Satterfield, T. 2004. Risk lived, stigma experienced: Reflections on the limits of adaptions. In Risk, media, and stigma-Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology, ed. J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and H. Kunreuther, 269-86. London: Earthscan.
66. T. Satterfield P. Slovic R. Gregory 2000 Narrative valuation in a policy judgment context Ecological Economics 34 315 331 doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00) 00177-4
67. R. Schibeci J. Harwood H. Dietrich 2006 Community involvement in biotechnology policy? The Australian experience Science Communication 27 3 429 445 doi:10.1177/1075547005285066
68. M. Siegrist 1999 A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29 2093 2106 doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02297.x
69. M. Siegrist 2000 The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology Risk Analysis 20 2 195 203 doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020
70. M. Siegrist G. Cvetkovich 2000 Perception of hazards: The role of social trust Risk Analysis 20 5 713 719 doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205064
71. M. Siegrist G.T. Cvcetkovich H. Gutscher 2001 Shared values, social trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters Risk Analysis 21 6 1047 1053 doi:10.1111/0272-4332.216173
72. M. Siegrist C. Keller H.A.L. Kiers 2005 A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards Risk Analysis 25 1 211 222 doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x
73. P. Slovic 1999 Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield Risk Analysis 19 4 689 701
74. P. Slovic M.L. Finucane E. Peters D.G. MacGregor 2004 Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality Risk Analysis 24 2 311 322 doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
75. Stirling, A. 2001. ESTO project report: On science and precaution in the management of technological risk; vol. 11, case studies. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies and ESTO.
76. T. Swiestra A. Rip 2007 Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology NanoEthics 1 1 3 20 doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8
77. Y. Tanaka 2004 Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology Risk Analysis 24 6 1575 1583 doi:10.1111/j.0272- 4332.2004.00551.x
78. Tegart, G. 2006. Environmental, social, legal and ethical aspects of the development of nanotechnologies in Australia. Parkville: National Academies Forum.
79. Tickner, J., C. Raffensberger, and N. Myers. 1999. The precautionary principle in action - a handbook. Science and Environmental Health Network. http://www.sehn.org/rtfdocs/handbook-rtf.rtf.
80. Timotijevic, Lada and Julie Barnett. 2006. Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: public understandings of precautionary action and advice. Health, Risk and Society 8(2): 143-164.
81. Toumey, C.P. 2006. Narratives for nanotech: Anticipating public reactions to nanotechnology. In Nanotechnology challenges: Implications for philosophy, ethics and society, ed. J. Schummer, and D. Baird, 383-411. Singapore: World Scientific.
82. Tulloch, J., and D. Lupton. 2003. Risk and everyday life. London: Sage Publications.
83. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 1992. Rio declaration on environment and development. Rio de Janeiro: UNEP.
84. J. Weckert 2007 Editorial NanoEthics 1 1 1 2 doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0009- 4
85. P.M. Wiedemann H. Schutz 2005 The precautionary principle and risk perception: experimental studies in the EMF area Environmental Health Perspectives 113 4 402 405
86. P.M. Wiedemann A.T. Thalmann M.A. Grutsch H. Schutz 2006 The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust Journal of Risk Research 9 4 361 372 doi:10.1080/ 13669870600802111
87. Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze - a reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment and modernity-Towards a new ecology, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44-83. London: SAGE.
88. B. Wynne 2002 Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology 50 3 459 477 doi:10.1177/0011392102050003010