Nanotechnology Risk Communication Past and Prologue

Risk Analysis

Volumn 30, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1645-1662

  Bostrom, Ann ^a   Löfstedt, Ragnar E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Nanotechnology; Public participation; Risk communication; Risk perception; Risk policy

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER CHOICE; MACROMOLECULAR SCALE; PUBLIC AWARENESS; PUBLIC INVESTMENTS; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; QUANTUM EFFECTS; RECENT PROGRESS; RISK COMMUNICATION; RISK POLICY; SCIENCE FICTIONS;

COMMUNICATION; INVESTMENTS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; QUANTUM ELECTRONICS; RISK ANALYSIS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; NANOTECHNOLOGY; REGULATORY APPROACH; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

ARTICLE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

NANOTECHNOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 78349247535     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01521.x     Document Type: Article

References (114)

1. Bainbridge WS. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2002; 4:561-570.
2. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication. Pp. 940-952 in Detels R, Beaglehole R, Lansang MA, Gulliford R (eds). Oxford Textbook of Public Health, Fifth Edition. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2009.
3. National Research Council. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC National Academy Press, 1996.
4. National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC National Academy Press, 1989.
5. BMRB International Limited, BMRB Social Research. Nanotechnology: Views of the General Public. Quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the Nanotechnology study. Prepared for the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Nanotechnology Working Group. BMRB/45/101-666, January 2004.
6. Royal Society, Science Policy Section and Royal Academy of Engineering (RS-RAE). Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004.
7. Peter D Hart Research Associates, Inc. Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies: A report of findings based on a national survey among adults conducted on behalf of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. (Survey conducted August 27-28, 2007.) Washington, DC Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars September 25, 2007., Accessed on August 15, 2008.
8. Priest S. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2006; 8:563-568.
9. Market Attitude Research Services PTY LTD (MARS). Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology-Trends 2005 to 2008, 2008. Available at: Study 2008 for website.pdf, Accessed on August 20, 2008.
10. Fujita Y, Abe S. AIST-NRI, Questionnaire Survey Report on Nanotechnology and Society 2005, (N = 1011, in Japanese). Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly, 4(6), (summary in English), Nanotechnology Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Science and Technology, January 31, 2006. Available at:, Accessed on August 20, 2008.
11. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorn BH. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4(11):752-758.
12. Curall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology, 2006; 1:153-155.
13. Barnett J, Carr A, Clift R. Going public: Risk, trust and public understandings of nanotechnology. In Hunt G, Mehta M (eds). Nanotechnology & Society: Ethics, Law & Policy. London Earthscan, 2006.
14. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2004; 6: 295-405.
15. Kahan D, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G. Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 22, 2007. Available at:, Accessed on July 30, 2008.
16. Gaskell G, Allum N, Stares S. Europeans and biotechnology in 2002. Published 2003. Available at:, Accessed on August 30, 2010.
17. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltr G. Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials, 2004; 3(8):496.
18. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 2005; 14:81-90.
19. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2005; 7:659-667.
20. Macoubrie J. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning, and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 2006; 15:221-241.
21. Siegrist M, Wiek A, Helland A, Kastenholz H. Correspondence. Risks and nanotechnology: The public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nature Nanotechnology, 2007; 2(2):67-67.
22. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH. Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2008; 10:549-558.
23. Löfstedt RE. Fairness across borders: The Barsebäck nuclear power plant. Risk Health, Safety and Environment, 1996; 7:135-144.
24. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 13 December 1991; 254:1603-1607.
25. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T, Hillback E, Guston D. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2007; 2(12):732-734.
26. Kahan D, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G, Kyser D. Biased Assimilation, Polarization, and Cultural Credibility: An Experimental Study of Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions, 2008. Available at:, Accessed on August 14, 2008.
27. Kahan D, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G. The Future of Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation, 2008. Available at:, Accessed on July 30, 2008.
28. Friedman SM, Egolf BP. Nanotechnology: Risks and the media. IEEE Tech Soc Magazine, 2005; 24(4):5-11.
29. Lowndes SF. News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 2005; 27:175-199.
30. Australian Government, Department of Innovation, Science, Industry and Research, Australia Office of Nanotechnology, April 2008. Nanotechnology-Working with the smallest things, April 2008. Available at:, Accessed September 2008.
31. Roth E, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Lave L, Bostrom A. What do we know about making risk comparisons? Risk Analysis, 1990; 10(3):375-387.
32. Bostrom A. Lead is like mercury: Risk comparisons, analogies and mental models. Journal of Risk Research, 2008; 11(1-2):99-117.
33. Howard J, Monatersky R, Trivedi B. European scientists dominate Nobel Prizes: Doris lessing wins for literature. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007; 54:8, A14.
34. National Academies Keck Futures Initiative (NAKFI). Designing Nanostructures at the Interface Between Biomedical and Physical Systems: Conference Focus Group Summaries. Washington, DC National Academies Press, 2005. Available at (quote):, Accessed on September 3, 2010.
35. Liu C, Dutton Z, Behroozi CH, Vestergaard Hau L. Observation of coherent optical information storage in an atomic medium using halted light pulses. Nature, 25 Jan 2001, 409:490-493.
36. Dutton Z, Ginsberg N, Slowe C, Vestergaard Hau L. The art of taming light: Ultra-slow and stopped light. Europhysics News, MarchApril 2004; 35(2):33-39.
37. Majewski PJ, Ping Chan C. Water purification by self-assembled monolayers on silica particles. International Journal of Nanotechnology, 2008; 5:291-298.
38. Nano, Issue Seven, June 2008. Available at:, Accessed on September 3, 2010.
39. Kohler AR, Som C. Environmental and health implications of nanotechnology-Have innovators learned the lessons from past experiences? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2008; 14(3):512-531.
40. Verma A, Uzun O, Hu Y, Hu Y, Han H, Watson N, Chen S, Irvine DJ, Stellacci F. Surface-structure-regulated cell-membrane penetration by monolayer-protected nanoparticles. Nature Materials, 2008; 7(7):588-595.
41. Chen HC, Roco MC, Li X, Lin YL. Trends in nanotechnology patents. Nature Nanotechnology, 2008; 3(3):123-125.
42. Youtie J, Shapira P, Porter A. National nanotechnology publications and citations. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2008; 10(6):981-986.
43. Huang Z, Chen H, Yip A, Ng G, Guo F, Chen ZK, Roco MC. Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: Country, institution and technology field. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2003; 5:333-363.
44. Davies, JC. Nanotechnology Oversight: An Agenda for the New Administration. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). PEN-13, July 2008. Available at:, Accessed on September 3, 2010.
45. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). The Appropriateness of Existing Methodologies to Assess the Potential Risks Associated with Engineered and Adventitious Products of Nanotechnologies. Brussels European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, 2006.
46. Balbus J, Denison R, Florini K, Walsh S. Getting nanotechnology right the first time. Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2005; 65-71.
47. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Nanotechnology: Better Guidance Is Needed to Ensure Accurate Reporting of Federal Research Focused on Environmental, Health, and Safety Risks, GAO08-402, March 2008. Available at:, Accessed on August 20, 2008.
48. National Research Council, Committee for Review of the Federal Strategy to Address Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, Committee on Toxicology, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST), National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB). Review of Federal Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research. Washington, DC National Academies Press, 2009.
49. Maynard, AD, Aitken RJ, Butz T, Colvin V, Donaldson K, Oberdörster G, Philbert MA, Ryan J, Seaton A, Stone V, Tinkle SS, Tran L, Walker NJ, Warheit DB. Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature, 2006; 444:267-269.
50. Renn O, Roco MC. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2006; 8:153-191.
51. Mantovani E, Porcari A. FramingNano Project: A multistakeholder dialogue platform framing the responsible development of Nanosciences & Nanotechnologies: Mapping Study on Regulation and Governance of Nanotechnologies. AIRI/Nanotec IT, January 2009. Available at
52. European Parliament Legislative Resolution of 24 March 2009 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Cosmetic Products (recast) (com(2008)0049 C6-0053/2008 2008/0035(cod)). Available at:, Accessed on September 3, 2010.
53. European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 March 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods and amending Regulation (EC) No XXX/XXXX [common procedure] (COM(2007)0872- C6-0027/2008- 2008/0002(COD)). P6_TA(2009)0171. Available at:, Accessed on September 3, 2010.
54. Helland A, Scheringer M, Siegrist M, Kastenholz HG, Wiek A, Scholz RW. Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: A survey of industrial approaches. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008; 42(2):640-646.
55. Conti JA, Killpack K, Gerritzen G, Huang L, Mircheva M, Delmas M, Harthorn BH, Appelbaum RP, Holden PA. Health and safety practices in the nanomaterials workplace: Results from an international survey. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008; 42(9):3155-3162.
56. Karn B, Matthews SH. Nano particles without macroproblems. IEEE Spectrum online, September, 2007. Available at:, Accessed on August 14, 2008.
57. International Risk Governance Council. Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics. Report prepared by Grobe A, Renn O, Jaeger A, Dialogik GmbH for IRGC. Geneva International Risk Governance Council, September 2008.
58. Shatkin JA. Nanotechnology: Health and Environmental Risks. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2008.
59. Hansen SF, Michelson ES, Kamper A, Borling P, Stuer-Lauridsen F, Baun A. Categorization framework to aid exposure assessment of nanomaterials in consumer products. Ecotoxicology, 2008; 17:438-447.
60. Takagi A, Hirose A, Nishimura T, Fukumori N, Ogata A, Ohashi N, Kitajima S, Kanno J. Induction of mesothelioma in p53+/- mouse by intraperitoneal application of multi-wall carbon nanotube. Journal of Toxicological Sciences, 2008; 33:105-116.
61. Poland, CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace WAH, Seaton A, Stone V, Brown S, MacNee W, Donaldson K. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity display asbestos-like pathogenic behaviour in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology, 2008; 3:423-428.
62. Nowack B, Bucheli TD. Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environmental Pollution, 2007; 150(1):5-22.
63. Chaudhry Q, Blackburn J, Floyd P, George C, Nwaogu T, Boxall A, Aitken R. Final Report: A Scoping Study to Identify Gaps in Environmental Regulation for the Products and Applications of Nanotechnologies, London Defra, 2006.
64. Ludlow K, Bowman D, Hodge G. A Review of Possible Impacts of Nanotechnology on Australia's Regulatory Framework, Final Report. Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Australia, September 2007.
65. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). Nanotechnology Risk Governance: Recommendations for a Global, Coordinated Approach to the Governance of Potential Risks. Geneva International Risk Governance Council, 2007.
66. Schütz H, Wiedemann P. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 2008; 17:369-379.
67. Cvetkovich G, Löfstedt RE (eds). Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London Earthscan, 1999.
68. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT. Social trust: Towards a Cosmopolitan Society. London Praeger, 1995.
69. Löfstedt RE. Risk Management in Post Trust Societies. Basingstoke Palgrave/Macmillan, 2005.
70. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich GT, Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:353-362.
71. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Prior attitudes, salient value similarity, and dimensionality: Toward an integrative model of trust in risk regulation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2006; 36(7):1674-1700.
72. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA. The future of public engagement. Scientist, 2007; 21(10):38-44.
73. Morgan K. Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(6):1621-1635.
74. Environmental Working Group [Gray S, Lunder S, Markey K, Sutton R, Leiba N, Houlihan N] Nanotechnology. Available at: Accessed on August 14, 2008.
75. Consumer Reports, No Nano Sunscreens December, 2008. Available at:, Accessed on September 3, 2010.
76. U.S. EPA. Nanomaterial Case Studies: Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide (External Review Draft). Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-09/057, 2009.
77. Throne-Holst H, Strandbakken P. Nobody told me I was a nano-consumer: How nanotechnologies might challenge the notion of consumer rights. J Consumer Policy, 2009; 32:393-402.
78. Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, Therapeutic Goods Administration. A review of the scientific literature on the safety of nanoparticulate titanium dioxide or zinc oxide in sunscreens, 2006. Available at:, Accessed on August 16, 2008.
79. Bennat C, Muller-Goymann CC. Skin penetration and stabilisation of formulations containing microfine titanium dioxide as physical UV filter. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2000; 22:271-284.
80. Schulz J, Hohenberg H, Pflucker F, Gartner E, Will T, Pfeiffer S, Wepf R, Wendel V, Gers-Barlag H, Wittern KP. Distribution of sunscreens on skin. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2002; 54(1):S157-S163.
81. Clift R. Nanotechnology: An example of risk management and regulation in an emerging technology. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds). Nanotechnology Risk, Ethics and Law. Earthscan, 2008. Available at:, Accessed on November 15, 2008.
82. Barker P, Branch A. The interaction of modern sunscreen formulations with surface coatings. Progress in Organic Coatings, 2008; 62:313-320.
83. Berube D. Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2008; 10:23-37.
84. Friends of the Earth (FOE). Nanotechnology & Sunscreen: A Consumer Guide for Avoiding Nano-Sunscreens. Written by Ian Illuminato with contributions from George Kimbrell, Georgia Miller, Dr. Jennifer Sass, Erich Pica, and Dr. Rye Senjen, 2007. Available at:, Accessed on August 20, 2008.
85. Environmental Working Group (EWG). EWG's 2009 Sunscreen Investigation, Section 4: Nanotechnology & Sunscreens. Available at:, Accessed on January 10, 2010.
86. Benn TM, Westerhoff P. Nanosilver nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008; 42:4133-4139.
87. Geranio L, Heuberger M, Nowack B. The behavior of silver nanotextiles during washing. Environmental Science & Technology, 2009; 43(21):8113-8118.
88. Luoma SM. Silver Nanotechnologies and the Environment: Old Problems or New Challenges Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC, 2008.
89. Larese FF, D'Agostin F, Crosera M, Adami G, Renzi N, Bovenzi M, Maina G. Human skin penetration of silver nanoparticles through intact and damaged skin. Toxicology, 2009; 255(1-2):33-37.
90. Council of Canadien Academies (CCA). Small is Different: A Science Perspective on the Regulatory Challenges of the Nanoscale. Report of the Expert Panel on Nanotechnology July 10, 2008. Available at:, Accessed on September 4, 2008.
91. International Risk Governance Council. Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics. Prepared by Antje GroB, Ortwen Renn, and Alexander Jaeger, Dialogik GmbH. Geneva International Risk Governance Council, 2008.
92. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite, 2008; 51(2):283-290.
93. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 1978; 9:127-152.
94. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. Earthscan, 2000.
95. Kennedy JF. XXXV President of the United States: 1961-1963. 93-Special Message to the Congress on Protecting the Consumer Interest, March 15, 1962. John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA Available at:, Accessed on January 9, 2010.
96. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET), Nanotechnology Environmental and Heath Implications (NEHI) working group. Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health and Safety Research. Executive Office of the President of the United States, February 2008. Available at:, Accessed on August 15, 2008.
97. Wilsdon J, Willis R. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos, 2004. Available at:, Accessed September 22, 2010.
98. Cook AJ, Fairweather JR. Results from New Zealand focus groups, Research Report No. 281. Canterbury, New Zealand Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, December 2005. Available at:, Accessed on September 3, 2010.
99. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or "upstream engagement"? Health Risk & Society, 2007; 9(2):191-210.
100. Pidgeon N, Herr Harthorn B, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4:95-98.
101. Bellucci S, Burri R. Public perception of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2008; 10(3);387-391.
102. TA-Swiss. Public Reactions to Nanotechnology in Switzerland. Report on Publifocus Discussion Forum, "Nanotechnology, Health and the Environment." TA-P 8/2006. Bern: Centre for Technology Assessment at the Swiss Science and Technology Council, 2006.
103. Kleinman D, Powell M. Report of the Madison Area Citizen Consensus Conference on Nanotechnology, April 24, 2005. Available at:, Accessed on 15 August 2008.
104. Bowman DM, Hodge GA. Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: Some international observations. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 2007; 27(2):118-132.
105. Bhattachary D, Stockley R, Hunter A. Nanotechnology for Health Care, British Market Research Bureau, 2008. Available at:, Accessed on September 3, 2010.
106. Löfstedt RE. Should big pharma be worried about nanotechnology? Working paper, King's Centre for Risk Management, King's College London, January 2008.
107. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N. Moving engagement "upstream"? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry. Public Understanding of Science, 2007; 16:345-364.
108. Rayner S. The novelty trap: Why does institutional learning about new technologies seem so difficult? Industry and Higher Education, 2004; 18(5):340-55.
109. Friends of the Earth (FOE). Out of the Laboratory and Onto Our Plates: Nanotechnology in Food & Agriculture. A report prepared for Friends of the Earth Australia, Friends of the Earth Europe, and Friends of the Earth United States and supported by Friends of the Earth Germany. Written by Georgia Miller and Dr. Rye Senjen, Friends of the Earth Australia Nanotechnology Project, 2nd edition April 2008. Available at:, Accessed on August 20, 2008.
110. Bostrom A, Fischhoff B, Morgan MG. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes. Journal of Social Issues, 1992; 48:85-100.
111. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2002.
112. European Food Law Weekly. Food could already contain nano, says EFSA. 10th October, 2008.
113. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). Concept note: Synthetic biology. Risk and Opportunities of an Emerging Field. Geneva International Risk Governance Council, 2008.
114. Devries SP, Jehl S. Nanotechnology: The next battleground for mass torts? Toxics Law Report, BNA, Inc., December 3, 2009; 24(47):11362-11364.