Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 11, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 1573-1585

  Corley, Elizabeth A ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^b   Hu, Qian ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefits; ELSI; Nanoscale science and engineering; Policy; Regulations; Risks; Scientists; Survey

Indexed keywords

BENEFITS; ELSI; NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING; POLICY; REGULATIONS; SCIENTISTS;

NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; SURVEYS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MANAGEMENT; NANOTECHNOLOGY; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGULATORY MECHANISM; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SCIENTIST; SEX DIFFERENCE;

EID: 70349737723     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. I Bennett D Sarewitz 2006 Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States Sci Cult 15 4 309 325 10.1080/09505430601022635
2. DM Berube 2008 Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles J Nanopart Res 10 23 37 10.1007/s11051-008-9362-7 10.1007/s11051-008-9362-7 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXhsFers7vP
3. J Besley V Kramer S Priest 2008 Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation J Nanopart Res 10 4 549 558 10.1007/s11051-007-9323-6 10.1007/s11051-007-9323-6
4. DM Bowman GA Hodge 2006 Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier Futures 38 9 1060 1073 10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.017 10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.017 (Pubitemid 44276114)
5. S Carr L Levidow 2000 Exploring the links between science, risk, uncertainty, and ethics in regulatory controversies about genetically modified crops J Agric Environ Ethics 12 1 29 39 10.1023/A:1009595924500 10.1023/A:1009595924500
6. CF Chau SH Wu GC Yen 2007 The development of regulations for food nanotechnology Trends Food Sci Technol 18 5 269 280 10.1016/j.tifs.2007.01.007 10.1016/j.tifs.2007.01.007 2007MeScT..18..265C 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXkslChtLs%3D (Pubitemid 46654756)
7. MD Cobb J Macoubrie 2004 Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust J Nanopart Res 6 4 395 405 10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4
8. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2008) Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, New York
9. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
10. European Food Safety Authority 2009 Scientific opinion: the potential risks arising from nanoscience and nanotechnologies on food and feed safety EFSA J 958 1 39
11. TA Faunce 2007 Nanotherapeutics: new challenges for safety and cost-effectiveness regulation in Australia Med J Aust 186 4 189 191 17309421
12. FDA (2009) FDA and nanotechnology products. http://www.fda.gov/ nanotechnology/faqs.html. Accessed 13 May 2009
13. E Fisher 2007 The convergence of nanotechnology, policy, and ethics Adv Comput 71 273 296
14. A Franco SF Hansen SI Olsen L Butti 2007 Limits and prospects of the "incremental approach" and the European legislation on the management of risks related to nanomaterials Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 48 2 171 183 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.03.007 17509740 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.03.007 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXmtVKjsL8%3D (Pubitemid 46818663)
15. Frank RH (1988) Passions within reason: the strategic role of the emotions. W.W. Norton, New York
16. SM Friedman BP Egolf 2005 Nanotechnology: risks and the media IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24 5 11 10.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 10.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 (Pubitemid 43009961)
17. S Friedrichs J Schulte 2007 Environmental, health and safety aspects of nanotechnology-implications for the R&D in (small) companies Sci Technol Adv Mater 8 12 18 10.1016/j.stam.2006.11.020 10.1016/j.stam.2006.11.020 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXisVKmu7g%3D (Pubitemid 46330162)
18. G Gaskell TA Ten Eyck J Jackson G Veltri 2004 Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States Nat Mater 3 8 496 10.1038/nmat1181 15286746 10.1038/nmat1181 2004NatMa...3..496G 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXmtVOhs7Y%3D
19. V Gewin 2006 Nanotech's big issue Nature 443 7108 137 10.1038/nj7108-242a 10.1038/nj7108-242a 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XpsVagtro%3D
20. Iyengar S (1991) Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
21. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
22. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G, Kysar D (2008) Biased assimilation, polarization, and cultural credibility: an experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Research Brief No. 3
23. H Kunreuther P Slovic 1996 Science, value, and risk Ann Am Acad Political Soc Sci 545 1 116 125 10.1177/0002716296545001012 10.1177/0002716296545001012
24. J Kuzma 2007 Moving forward responsibly: oversight for the nanotechnology-biology interface J Nanopart Res 9 1 165 182 10.1007/s11051-006- 9151-0 10.1007/s11051-006-9151-0 (Pubitemid 46036120)
25. J Kuzma J Paradise G Ramachandran JA Kim A Kokotovich SM Wolf 2008 An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies Risk Anal 28 5 1197 1219 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x 18631303 10.1111/j.1539-6924. 2008.01086.x
26. R Lee D Jose 2008 Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: emerging dilemmas for modern managers Technol Anal Strateg Manag 20 1 113 125 10.1080/09537320701726775 10.1080/09537320701726775
27. D Magnus 1997 Heuristics and biases in evolutionary biology Biol Philos 12 1 21 38 10.1023/A:1017953510082 10.1023/A:1017953510082
28. GE Marchant DJ Sylvester 2006 Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology J Law Med Ethics 34 4 714 725 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00091.x 17199813 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00091.x (Pubitemid 44787833)
29. McGarity TO (1978-1979) Substantive and procedural discretion in administration resolution of science policy questions: regulating carcinogens in EPA and OSHA. Georget Law J 67: 729-809
30. N O'Brien E Cummins 2008 Recent developments in nanotechnology and risk assessment strategies for addressing public and environmental health concerns Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14 3 568 592 10.1080/10807030802074261 10.1080/ 10807030802074261 (Pubitemid 351883233)
31. E Plutzer A Maney RE O'Connor 1998 Ideology and elites' perceptions of the safety of new technologies Am J Pol Sci 42 1 190 209 10.2307/2991752 10.2307/2991752
32. AL Porter J Youtie P Shapira DJ Schoeneck 2008 Refining search terms for nanotechnology J Nanopart Res 10 5 715 728 10.1007/s11051-007-9266-y 10.1007/s11051-007-9266-y 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXkvFajt70%3D (Pubitemid 351579773)
33. MC Powell 2007 New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists' standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames Health Risk Soc 9 2 173 190 10.1080/13698570701306872 10.1080/13698570701306872 (Pubitemid 46993394)
34. M Powell MPA Griffin S Tai 2008 Bottom-up risk regulation? How nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps challenge federal and state environmental agencies Environ Manag 42 3 426 443 10.1007/s00267-008-9129-z 10.1007/s00267-008-9129-z 2008EnMan..42..426P
35. K Reinert L Andrews R Keenan 2006 Nanotechnology nexus-intersection of research, science, technology, and regulation Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12 5 811 818 10.1080/10807030600848601 10.1080/10807030600848601 (Pubitemid 44359762)
36. O Renn M Roco 2006 Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance J Nanopart Res 8 2 153 191 10.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 10.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 (Pubitemid 44199974)
37. Revkin A (2004, October 19) Bush vs. The laureates: how science became a Partisan issue. New York Times
38. DG Rickerby 2007 Nanotechnological medical devices and nanopharmaceuticals: the European regulatory framework and research needs J Nanosci Nanotechnol 7 12 4618 4625 18283854 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXhtFegu7o%3D
39. Salter L, Levy E, Leiss W (1988) Mandated science: science and scientists in the making of standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA
40. A Samarapungavan EL Westby GM Bodner 2006 Contextual epistemic development in science: a comparison of chemistry students and research chemists Sci Educ 90 3 468 495 10.1002/sce.20111 10.1002/sce.20111
41. Scheufele DA (2006) Messages and heuristics: how audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In: Turney J (ed) Engaging science: thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. The Wellcome Trust, London, pp 20-25
42. DA Scheufele BV Lewenstein 2005 The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies J Nanopart Res 7 6 659 667 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2
43. DA Scheufele EA Corley S Dunwoody T-J Shih E Hillback DH Guston 2007 Scientists worry about some risks more than the public Nat Nanotechnol 2 12 732 734 10.1038/nnano.2007.392 18654416 10.1038/nnano.2007.392 2007NatNa...2..732S 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtlykt7fF (Pubitemid 350223352)
44. DA Scheufele EA Corley T-j Shih KE Dalrymple SS Ho 2009 Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States Nat Nanotechnol 4 2 91 94 10.1038/nnano.2008.361 19197309 10.1038/nnano.2008.361 2009NatNa...4...91S 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhsFemsb4%3D
45. Schummer J, Baird D (2006) Nanotechnology challenges: implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Hackensack, NJ
46. M Siegrist M-E Cousin H Kastenholz A Wiek 2007 Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust Appetite 49 459 466 17442455 10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 (Pubitemid 47374891)
47. M Siegrist C Keller H Kastenholz S Frey A Wiek 2007 Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards Risk Anal 27 1 59 69 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x 17362400 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x (Pubitemid 46411634)
48. M Siegrist N Stampfli H Kastenholz C Keller 2008 Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging Appetite 51 2 283 290 10.1016/j.appet.2008.02.020 18406006 10.1016/j.appet.2008.02.020
49. CL Silva HC Jenkins-Smith 2007 The precautionary principle in context: U.S. and E.U. scientists' prescriptions for policy in the face of uncertainty Soc Sci Q 88 3 640 664 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00476.x 10.1111/j.1540-6237. 2007.00476.x
50. P Slovic T Malmfors D Krewski CK Mertz N Neil S Bartlett 1995 Intuitive toxicology II: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada Risk Anal 15 6 661 675 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x (Pubitemid 26048312)
51. Sniderman PM, Brody RA, Tetlock PE (1991) Reasoning and choice: explorations in political psychology. Cambridge University Press, New York
52. CR Sunstein 2005 Moral heuristics Behav Brain Sci 28 4 531 573 16209802
53. MG Tyshenko D Krewski 2008 A risk management framework for the regulation of nanomaterials Int J Nanotechnol 5 1 143 160 10.1504/IJNT.2008.016553 10.1504/IJNT.2008.016553 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXktVKqs7g%3D
54. Zaller JR (1992) The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press, New York