Predicting the future: Review of public perception studies of nanotechnology

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 837-846

  Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Labeling; Nanotechnology; Regulation; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955863043     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: 15497860     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2010.501255     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ayers T. 1998. A tomato by any other name? U.S. and EC grapple with labeling. Science 281:714-5
2. Bainbridge WS. 2002. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4:561-70
3. Batt CA, Waldron AM, and Broadwater N. 2008. Numbers, scale and symbols: The public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10:1141-8
4. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Yao Q, et al. 2008. Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 30:209-35
5. Brayner R. 2008. The toxicological impact of nanoparticles. Nano Today 3:48-55
6. Bredahl L. 1999. Consumers' cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite 33:343-60
7. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, et al. 2009. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18:546-58
8. Burri RV and Bellucci S. 2008. Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10:387-91
9. Castellini OM, Walejko GK, Holladay CE, et al. 2007. Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. J Nanopart Res 9:183-9
10. Cobb MD. 2005. Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27:221-39
11. Cobb MD and Macoubrie J. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395-405
12. Colvin VL. 2003. The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat Biotechnol 21:1166-70
13. Conti JA, Killpack K, Gerritzen G, et al. 2008. Health and safety practices in the nanomaterials workplace: Results from an international survey. Environ Sci Technol 42:3155-62
14. Currall SC. 2009. New insights into public perceptions. Nat Nanotechnol 4:79-80
15. Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, et al. 2006. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1:153-5
16. Einsiedel EF and Goldenberg L. 2006. Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. In: Hunt G and Mehta MD (eds), Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law, pp 213-21. Earthscan, London, UK
17. Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, et al. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nat Biotechnol 18:935-8
18. Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J, et al. 1999. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285:384-7
19. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, et al. 2004. Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater 3:496
20. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, et al. 2005. Imaging nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14:81-90
21. Helland A, Scheringer M, Siegrist M, et al. 2008. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials-Survey of industrial approaches. Environ Sci Technol 42:640-6
22. Hornig Priest S. 2008. North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies. J Risk Res 11:877-89
23. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, et al. 2009. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87-90
24. Keller KH. 2007. Nanotechnology and society. J Nanopart Res 9:5-10
25. Köhler AR and Som C. 2008. Environmental and health implications of nanotechnology-Have innovators learned the lessons from past experiences? Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14:512-31
26. Lee C-J, Scheufele DA, and Lewenstein BV. 2005. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci Commun 27:240-67
27. Macoubrie J. 2006. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221-41
28. Maynard AD. 2006. Nanotechnology: Assessing the risks. Nano Today 1:22-33
29. Mehta MD. 2006. From biotechnology to nanotechnology: What can we learn from earlier technologies? In: Hunt G and Mehta MD (eds), Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law, pp 121-9. Earthscan, London, UK
30. O'Brien N and Cummins E. 2008. Recent developments in nanotechnology and risk assessment strategies for addressing public and environmental health concerns. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14:568-92
31. Pidgeon N, Herr Harthorn B, Bryant K, et al. 2009. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4:95-8
32. Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, and Slovic P. 2003. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
33. Pidgeon N and Rogers-Hayden T. 2007. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or 'upstream engagement'? Health Risk Soc 9:191-210
34. Priest S. 2006. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 8:563-8
35. Renn O and Roco MC. 2006. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8:153-91
36. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Royal Society, London, UK
37. Rozin P. 2005. The meaning of "natural." Psychol Sci 16:652-8
38. Rozin P. 2006. Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: Process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgment and Decision Making 1:91-7
39. Scheufele DA and Lewenstein BV. 2005. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659-67
40. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, et al. 2007. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732-4
41. Scholderer J and Frewer L. 2003. The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. J Consumer Policy 26:125-57
42. Schütz H and Wiedemann PM. 2008. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:369-79
43. Siegrist M. 2008. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:603-8
44. Siegrist M, Earle TC, and Gutscher H. 2003. Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Anal 23:705-16
45. Siegrist M, Cousin M-E, Kastenholz H, et al. 2007a. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49:459-66
46. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, et al. 2007b. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27:59-69
47. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, et al. 2008. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51:283-90
48. Sjöberg L. 2000. Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J Risk Res 3:353-67
49. Slovic P. 1995. The construction of preference. Am Psychol 50:364-71
50. Smiley Smith SE, Hosgood HD, Michelson ES, et al. 2008. Americans' nanotechnology risk perception: Assessing opinion change. J Ind Ecol 12:459-73
51. Stern ST and McNeil SE. 2008. Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited. Toxicol Sci 101:4-21
52. Waldron AM, Spencer D, and Batt CA. 2006. The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 8:569-75
53. Wiedemann PM and Scḧutz H. 2005. The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environ Health Perspect 113:402-5