Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent U.S. nanotechnology risk perceptions

Risk Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1734-1748

  Conti, Joseph ^a   Satterfield, Terre ^b   Harthorn, Barbara Herr ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Justice; Nanotechnology risk and benefit perceptions; Narrative information framing; Vulnerability

Indexed keywords

AFFECTIVE FACTORS; COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; INVASIVENESS; JUSTICE; NARRATIVE ANALYSIS; NARRATIVE INFORMATION FRAMING; PERCEIVED RISK; PSYCHOMETRIC QUALITY; RESEARCH QUESTIONS; RISK RESEARCH; SOCIAL IMPLICATION; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL POSITION; VULNERABILITY;

NANOTECHNOLOGY; RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; VULNERABILITY;

ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LEGAL ASPECT; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNITED STATES;

DATA COLLECTION; ENVIRONMENT; HUMANS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNITED STATES;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 81255134322     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Nel A, Xia T, Madler L, Li N. Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science, 2006; 311(5761):622-627.
2. Maynard A, Aitken R, Butz T, Colvin V, Donaldson K, Oberdörster G, Philbert M, Ryan J, Seaton A, Stone V, Tinkle S, Tran L, Walker N, Warheit DB. Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature, 2006; 444(16):267-269.
3. Oberdörster G. Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J. Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005; 113(7):823-839.
4. Donaldson K., Aitken R, Tran L, Stone V, Duffin R, Forrest G, Alexander A. Carbon nanotubes: A review of their properties in relation to pulmonary toxicology and workplace safety. Toxicological Sciences, 2006; 92(1):5-22.
5. Wittmaack K. In search of the most relevant parameter for quantifying lung inflammatory response to nanoparticle exposure: Particle number, surface area, or what? Environmental Health Perspectives, 2007; 115(2):187-194.
6. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Jones K, Hochella JMF, Di Giulio RT, Casman E, Bernhardt ES. Decreasing uncertainties in assessing environmental exposure, risk and ecological implications of nanomaterials. Environmental Science and Technology, 2009; 43(17):6458-6462.
7. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie C, Conti J, Harthorn BH. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4:752-758.
8. Kahan, DM. Nanotechnology and society: The evolution of risk perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4(11):705-706.
9. Wilsdon J, Willis R. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos, 2004. Available at, accessed March 4, 2011.
10. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen GL. Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. Yale University: Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 22, 2007.
11. Scheufele D, Corley EA, Shih T, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 2008; 4(2):91-94.
12. Vandermoere, F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, 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, 2009; doi:.
13. Vandermoere, F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: About God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2010; 12(2):373-381.
14. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 2009; 18(5):546-558.
15. 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(1):81-90.
16. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G, Kysar D. Biased assimilation, polarization, and cultural credibility: An experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Report, 2008.
17. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 2005; 27(2):240-267.
18. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E, Guston D. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2007; 2:732-734.
19. Besley JC, Kramer V, Priest SH. Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risk, benefits, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2008; 10(4):549-558.
20. 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(2):459-466.
21. 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.
22. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, 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(2):95-98.
23. Burningham K, Thrush D. Experiencing environmental inequality: The everyday concerns of disadvantaged groups. Housing Studies, 2003; 18(4):517-536.
24. Priest S. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2006; 8(5):563-568.
25. Besley JC, McComas KA, Waks L. Media use and the perceived justice of local science authorities. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2006; 83(4):801-818.
26. McComas KA, Besley JC, Yang Z. Risky business: The perceived justice of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(6):1539-1552.
27. Taylor D. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm. American Behavioral Scientist, 2000; 43(4):508-580.
28. Zimmerman R. Social equity and environmental risk. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13(6):649-666.
29. Szasz A, Meuser M. Environmental inequalities: Literature review and proposals for new directions in research and theory. Current Sociology, 1997; 45(3):99-120.
30. Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 2006; 27:103-124.
31. Bullard R, Wright B. Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuild and Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2009.
32. Bullard R. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1993.
33. Bullard R. Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. New York: Random House, 1994.
34. Satterfield T, Mertz C, Slovic P. Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(1):115-129.
35. Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz C, Flynn J, Satterfield T. Gender, race, and perceived risk: The "white male" effect. Health, Risk and Society, 2000; 2(2):159-172.
36. Brown P, Ferguson FI. "Making a big stink": Women's work, women's relationships, and their toxic waste activism. Chapter 14 in Sachs CE (ed). Women Working in the Environment. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis, 1997.
37. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(6):1101-1108.
38. Cobb MD. Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 2005; 27(2):221-239.
39. Smiley Smith SE, Hosgood D, Michelson ES, Stowe MH. Americans' nanotechnology risk perception. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2008; 12(3):459-473.
40. Schutz H, Wiedemann PM. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 2008; 17(3):369-379.
41. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 2007; 177(3):1333-1352.
42. Satterfield T, Slovic P, Gregory R. Narrative valuation in a policy judgment context. Ecological Economics, 2000; 34(3):315-331.
43. Sanfey A, Hastie R. Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments. Psychological Science, 1998; 9(2):99-103.
44. Kearney AR. Understanding global change: A cognitive perspective on communicating through stories. Climate Change, 1994; 27:419-441.
45. Henwood K, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Simmons P. Researching risk: Narrative, biography, subjectivity. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2010; 11(1), Art. 20, Accessed on August 21, 2010.
46. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan, 2000.
47. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236 (4799):280-285.
48. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27(1):59-69.
49. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Experimental Designs Using ANOVA. Belmont CA: Thompson Higher Education, 2007.
50. Kirk RE. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Belmont CA: Wadsworth, 1982.
51. Hsee CK. Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1998; 11:107-121.
52. MacGregor, DG, Slovic P, Granger Morgan M. Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: A psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(5):815-828.
53. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(1):199-206.
54. Polanyi K. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2001.
55. Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 1985; 91(3):481-510.
56. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(4):689-701.
57. Harthorn BH, Oaks L. (eds). Risk, Culture, and Health Inequality: Shifting Perceptions of Danger and Blame. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.
58. Douglas M. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge, 1992.
59. Lupton D. Risk. London: Routledge, 1999.
60. Krieger N. (ed). Embodying Inequality: Epidemiological Perspectives. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publ, 2004.