The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: About god, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 373-381

  Vandermoere, Frederic ^a,b   Blanchemanche, Sandrine ^c   Bieberstein, Andrea ^d   Marette, Stephan ^e   Roosen, Jutta ^d  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c INRA Paris   (France)

^d TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^e INRA ALISS   (France)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Nanotechnology; Public understanding; Religiosity; Risk perception; Societal implications

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDES; COVARIATES; GERMANY; HOLISTIC VIEW; MULTINOMIAL LOGIT; PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING; RELIGIOSITY; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS; SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS; SURVEY DATA;

NANOTECHNOLOGY; RISK ANALYSIS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE; AWARENESS; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MORALITY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; NATURAL SCIENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIGION; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW;

EID: 77955770745     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: 1572896X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-009-9809-5     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Agresti A (1996) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York
2. Ameisen J et al (2007) Ethical issues raised by nanosciences, nanotechnologies and health. Opinion nr. 96, National Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences
3. Bainbridge W (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561-570
4. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18 (5):546-558
5. Cobb M, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nano-technology: risk, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395-405
6. Corral-Verdugo V, Carrus G, Bonnes M, Moser G, Sinha J (2008) Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in water conservation. Toward a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environ Behav 40:703-725
7. European Commission (2005) Some figures about nanotech-nology R&D in Europe and beyond. http://cordis.europa. eu.int/nanotechnology. Accessed 14 October
8. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, London
9. Heelas P, Woodhead L (2005) The spiritual revolution: why religion is giving way to spirituality. Blackwell, Oxford
10. Kahan D, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotech-nology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87-90
11. Lee C, Scheufele D, Lewenstein B (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci Commun 27:240-267
12. Luhmann N (1989) Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduction Sozialer Complexität [Trust: a mechanism for the reduction of social complexity]. Enke, Stuttgart
13. Norris P, Inglehart R (2004) Sacred and secular: religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
14. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4 (2):95-98
15. Roco M, Bainbridge W (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kluwer, Dordrecht
16. Rothstein H, Huber M, Gaskell G (2006) A theory of risk colonization: the spiralling regulatory logics of societal and institutional risk. Econ Soc 35 (1):91-112
17. Scheufele D, Lewenstein B (2005) The public and nanotech-nology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659-667
18. Scheufele D, Corley E, Shih T, Dalrymple K, Ho S (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotech-nology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4 (2):91-94
19. Sjöberg L (2000a) Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J Risk Res 3:353-367
20. Sjöberg L (2000b) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1-11
21. Sjöberg L (2003) Distal factors in risk perception. J Risk Res 6 (3):187-211
22. Slovic P, Peters E (1998) The importance of worldviews in risk perception. Risk Decis Policy 3 (2):165-170
23. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124-1131
24. Waldron A, Spencer D, Batt C (2006) The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 8:569-575
25. Wolf C (2008) How secularized is Germany? Cohort and comparative perspectives. Soc Compass 55 (2):111-126