Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: Emerging technologies, emerging challenges

Risk Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1694-1700

  Pidgeon, Nick ^a   Harthorn, Barbara ^b   Satterfield, Terre ^c  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMIC LEVELS; COMMUNICATION FIELDS; EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; MENTAL MODEL; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; RISK COMMUNICATION;

COMMUNICATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC RISKS; RISK ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGY;

RISK PERCEPTION;

NANOTECHNOLOGY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PERCEPTION; RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT;

COMMUNICATION; HUMANS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PERCEPTION; RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 81255128174     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London: Royal Society, 2004.
2. Metha M. From biotechnology to nanotechnology: What can we learn from earlier technologies? Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 2004; 24(1):34-39.
3. Roco M, Bainbridge W. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Netherlands: Kluwer, 2003.
4. Arnall AH, Parr D. Moving the nanoscience and technology (NST) debate forwards: Short-term impacts, long-term uncertainty and the social constitution. Technology in Society, 2005; 27:23-38.
5. Pidgeon NF, Kasperson RE, Slovic P. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
6. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon NF. Moving engagement "upstream"? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Public Understanding of Science, 2007; 16:346-364.
7. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorn B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4:752-758.
8. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. The Construction of Preference. London: Earthscan, 2006.
9. Siegrist M. Predicting the future: Review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2010; 16:837-846.
10. Kahan DM. The evolution of risk perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4:705-706.
11. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4:87-90.
12. Fischhoff B, Fischhoff I. Publics' opinions of biotechnologies. AgBiotech Forum, 2002; 4(3&4):155-162.
13. Pidgeon NF, Harthorn B, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnology for energy and health applications in the US and UK. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4:95-98.
14. Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL. Acceptable Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
15. Davies S, Macnaghten P, Kearnes M. Reconfiguring Responsibility: Lessons for Public Policy (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology). Durham: Durham University, 2009.
16. Wynne B. Risk and social learning: Reification to engagement. In Krimsky S, Golding D (eds). Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992.
17. Marris C. Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports, 2001: 2(7): 545-548.
18. Wilsdon J, Willis R. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos, 2004.
19. Pidgeon NF, Rogers-Hayden T. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or "upstream engagement"? Health, Risk and Society, 2007; 9:191-210.
20. Guston D, Sarewitz D. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 2002; 24:93-109.
21. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B. Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 2005; 27:268-291.
22. Kurath M, Gisler P. Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio-, and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 2009; 18(5):559-573.
23. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995.
24. Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds.) Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: U.S. National Research Council, 1996.
25. Toumey C. Democratizing nanotech: Then and now. Nature Nanotechnology, 2011; 6:605-606.
26. Corner A, Pidgeon NF. Nanotechnologies and upstream engagement: Dilemmas, debates and prospects. In Harthorn B, Mohr J (eds). The Social Life of Nanotechnology. London: Routledge Press (2012).
27. Macoubrie J. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 2006; 15:221-241.
28. Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J. Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies. London: Demos, 2006.
29. Kearnes M, Wynne B. On nanotechnology and ambivalence: The politics of enthusiasm. Nanoethics, 2007; 1:131-143.
30. Harthorn B, Shearer C, Rogers J. Exploring ambivalence: Techno-enthusiasm and skepticism in US nanotech deliberations. In Zülsdorf T, Coenen C, Ferrari A, Fiedeler U, Milburn C, Wienroth M (eds). Quantum Engagements-Social Reflections of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies. AKA Verlag: Heidelberg, 2011.
31. Stilgoe J. Nanodialogues: Experiments in Public Engagement with Science. London: Demos, 2007.
32. Scheufele D, Corley EA, Dunwoody S. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2007; 2:732-734.
33. Ronteltap A, Fischer ARH, Tobi H. Societal response to nanotechnology: Converging technologies-Converging societal response research? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2011; 13:4399-4410.
34. Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Rowe G, Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, O'Riordan T. Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision-making: The case of the 2003 British GM Nation public debate. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(2):467-480.
35. Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX. Hidden hazards. In Mayo DG, Hollander RD (eds). Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
36. Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield T. Gender, race and perceived risk: The "white male" effect. Health, Risk and Society, 2000; 2(2):159-172.
37. Vandermoere FS, Blanchemanche A, Bieberstein S, Marette S, Roosen J. The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Understanding of Science, 2011; 20(2):195-206.
38. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 2007; 49:459-466.
39. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: 20 years of process. Risk Analysis, 1995; 15:137-145.
40. Pidgeon NF, Fischhoff B. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change, 2011; 1:35-41.
41. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG. The affect heuristic. In Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahnman D (eds). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
42. Corner A, Pidgeon NF. Geoengineering the climate-The social and ethical implications. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 2010; 52(1):24-37.