Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 11-20

  Priest, Susanna ^a   Greenhalgh, Ted ^a   Kramer, Victoria ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefit perception; Nanoengineering; Nanoscience; Nanotechnology; Need for regulation; Opinion formation; Panel study; Risk perception; Societal implications

Indexed keywords

BENEFIT PERCEPTION; HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT; NANOENGINEERING; OPINION FORMATION; PHYSICAL RISKS; PUBLIC CONCERN; SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS;

HEALTH RISKS; NANOSCIENCE; PUBLIC RISKS; RISK ANALYSIS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ANIMAL HEALTH; CITIZENSHIP; COMPUTER; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ELECTRONICS; ENGINEERING; ENVIRONMENT; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH; HEALTH HAZARD; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMANITIES; INTERVIEW; MEDICINE; NANOENGINEERING; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NONHUMAN; POLLUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; RISK; SCIENTIST; SOCIETY; SOCIOLOGY; STUDENT T TEST; UNITED STATES;

EID: 75049084610     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-009-9789-5     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. J Besley V Kramer S Priest 2008 Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risk, benefits, and regulation J Nanopart Res 10 549 558 10.1007/s11051-007-9323-6
2. MD Cobb J Macoubrie 2004 Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust J Nanopart Res 6 395 405 10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4
3. RM Entman 1993 Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm J Commun 43 4, Autumn 51 58 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
4. SN Friedman BP Egolf 2005 Nanotechnology: risks and the media IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24 4, Winter 5 11 10.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 (Pubitemid 43009961)
5. Friedman SN, Egolf BP (2008) Mass media coverage of nanotechnology: indicators about environmental and health risks and regulatory issues. Data provided by the authors and presented at NBER Conference on Emerging Industries: Nanotechnology and NanoIndicators, Cambridge, MA
6. Gorss J, Lewenstein BV (2005) The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004, presented to the International Communication Association, New York
7. Hart Research Associates, Inc (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. A report of findings conducted on behalf of: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/ files/7040/final-synbioreport.pdf. Accessed May 2009
8. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (2005) The social contours of risk, vol I: publics, risk communication & the social amplification of risk. Earthscan, Sterling, VA
9. RE Kasperson O Renn P Slovic H Brown J Emel R Goble JX Kasperson S Ratick 1988 The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework Risk Anal 8 2 177 187 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x (Pubitemid 18187435)
10. Katz E, Lazarsfeld PF (1955) Personal influence. The Free Press, New York
11. Lazarsfeld PF, Berelson B, Gaudet H (1944) The people's choice: how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press, New York
12. ME McCombs DL Shaw 1993 The evolution of agenda-setting research: twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas J Commun 43 2 58 67 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01262.x
13. National Science Foundation (2008) Science and engineering indicators 2008. National Science Foundation, Washington
14. B Paul MB Salwen M Dupagne 2000 The third-person effect: a meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis Mass Commun Soc 3 1 57 85 10.1207/S15327825MCS0301- 04
15. MC Powell 2007 New risk or old risk, high risk or low risk? How scientists' standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames Health Risk Soc 9 173 190 10.1080/13698570701306872 (Pubitemid 46993394)
16. S Priest 2008 North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies J Risk Res 11 877 889 10.1080/13669870802056904
17. Priest S, Fussell H (2006) Nanotechnology: constructing the public and public constructions. Paper presented at annual meeting, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
18. Priest S, Kramer V (2008) Making sense of emerging nanotechnologies: how ordinary people form impressions of new technology. Paper presented at annual meeting, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
19. DA Scheufele EA Corley T Shih KE Dalrymple SS Ho 2009 Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the US Nat Nanotechnol 4 2 91 94 10.1038/nnano.2008.361 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXhsFemsb4%3D 19197309 2009NatNa...4...91S
20. RF Service 2008 Can high-speed tests sort out which nanomaterials are safe? Science 321 1036 1037 10.1126/science.321.5892.1036 1:CAS:528: DC%2BD1cXhtVKgsLbN 18719262
21. Shatkin J (2008) Nanotechnology: health and environmental risks. CRC Press (Taylor & Francis Group), Boca Rotaon, FL
22. P Slovic ML Finucane E Peters D MacGregor 2004 Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality Risk Anal 24 2 1 12 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x (Pubitemid 38620129)
23. Stephens LF (2004) News narratives about nano: How journalist and the news media are framing nanoscience and nanotechnology initiatives and issues. Paper presented at imaging and imagining nanoscience & engineering conference, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, March 7
24. Tichenor PJ, Donohue GA, Olien CN (1980) Community conflict and the press. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills
25. Tuchman G (1978) Making news: a study in the construction of reality. Free Press, New York