The public perception of nanotechnology: Is it all about risk?

Nanotechnology Perceptions

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 85-94

  Groves, Christopher ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649854574     PISSN: 16606795     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4024/N08GR10A.ntp.06.02     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. See www.smalltalk.org.uk, http://www.nanojury.org.uk, http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/thenanodialogues and http://www.nanowhat.co.uk/.
2. Some examples include: Nanodialogues (Demos, UK, 2005-07), Nanologue (EU, 2005-06); Nanojury (UK, 2005); Global Dialogue on Nanotechnology and the Poor, (USA, 2004-05); Citizens' Attitudes Towards Nanotechnology Survey (Denmark, 2005); Melbourne Citizens' Panel on Nanotechnologies, (Australia, 2004); Deepening Ethical Engagement and Participation in Emerging Nanotechnologies (DEEPEN, EU, 2006-09), Consumer Conference on Nanotechnology in Foods, Cosmetics and Textiles (BfR, Germany, 2006).
3. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. 2004. See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos; pp. 32-33.
4. Stilgoe, J. 2007. Nanodialogues. London: Demos; p. 18.
5. Jones, R. 2010. Responsible innovation still needs innovation. Soft Machines weblog, 25 March, http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=683.
6. UK Government 2005. Response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report: 'Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties'. London: Department of Trade and Industry; p. 7.
7. UK Government 2008. A vision for science and society: a consultation on developing a new strategy for the UK. London: Department of Innovation Universities and Skills; pp. 27-29.
8. Kearnes, M. and Wynne, B. 2007. On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. Nanoethics 1, pp. 131-142.
9. Groves, C. Frater, L. et al. 2009. An examination'of the nature and application among the nanotechnologies industries of corporate social responsibility in the context of safeguarding the environment and human health. Cardiff: Centre For Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS).
10. Rip, A. 2006. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture 15, pp. 349-365.
11. Croteau, D. R. and Hoynes, W. 1997. Audiences: meaning and influence. In: Croteau, D. R. and Hoynes, W., cds. Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press.
12. Kasperson, R., Renn, O. et al. 1988. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 8, pp. 178-187; pp. 186-8.
13. See, e.g., Vlek, C. A. and Stallen, RJ. M. 1981. Judging risks and benefits in the small and the large. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 28, pp. 235-271.
14. Power, M. 2004. The risk management of everything: rethinking the politics of uncertainty. London: Demos; pp. 34-35.
15. Cobb, M. D. and Macoubrie, J. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust. J. Nanoparticle Res. 6, pp. 395-405.
16. Ibid., pp. 399-400.
17. See, for example, Gaskell, G. et al. 2005. Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science 14, pp. 81-90;
18. Currall, S. C. et al. 2006. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology 1, pp. 153-155;
19. European Commission, 2006. Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends. Brussels: Directorate General for Press and Communication.
20. Scheufele, D. A. et al. 2007. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology 2, pp. 732-734.
21. See for example, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Germany) 2006. BfR Consumer Conference on Nanotechnology in Foods, Cosmetics and Textiles. Berlin: BfR.
22. Gavelin, K. et al. 2007. Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). London: Involve; pp. 33-35, 40;
23. Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. et al. 2006. Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos; p. 54.
24. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. et al. 2000. Wising up: the public and new technologies. Lancaster: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (Lancaster University), p. 29;
25. Macoubrie, J. 2006. Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science 15, pp. 221-241; pp. 235-236.
26. Gavelin et al. 2007, op. cit., p. 29.
27. Fischer, F. 2005. Are scientists irrational? Risk assessment in practical reason. In: Leach, M., Scoones, I. et al., eds. Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement. London: Zed Books.
28. See, for example, Anderson, A., Petersen, A. et al. 2009. Nanotechnology, risk and communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77-78;
29. Friedman, S. M. and Egolf, B. P. 2005. Nanotechnology, risks and the media. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 24(4), pp. 5-11;
30. Lewenstein, B. V., Gorss, J. et al. 2005. The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. International Communication Association Conference. 26-30 May.
31. Furedi, F. 2002. Culture of fear: risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. London; New York: Continuum, pp. 107-108.
32. See also Power, op. cit., pp. 55-57.
33. Barry, A. 2001. Political machines: governing a technological society. London: Athlone; p. 212.
34. van de Poel, I. and Zwart, S. D. 2010. Reflective equilibrium in R&D networks. Science, Technology and Human Values 35, pp. 174-199.
35. http://www.forumnano.org