Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: An expert stakeholder analysis

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2012, Pages

  Gupta, Nidhi ^a   Fischer, Arnout R H ^a   Van Der Lans, Ivo A ^a   Frewer, Lynn J ^b  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Applications of nanotechnology; Expert opinion; Factors; Generalized Procrustes analysis; Nanotechnology; Repertory grid method; Societal implications; Societal response

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ROBOTS; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; MILITARY APPLICATIONS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; SPORTS MEDICINE;

APPLICATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGIES; EXPERT OPINION; FACTORS; GENERALIZED PROCRUSTES ANALYSIS; REPERTORY GRID METHODS; SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS; SOCIETAL RESPONSE;

FACTOR ANALYSIS;

AGRICULTURE; ARTICLE; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; ENVIRONMENT; EUROPE; EXPERT SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEDICINE; METHODOLOGY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SOCIAL ADAPTATION; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

EID: 84860589727     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: 1572896X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith HC (1993) Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Anal 13:425-439 (Pubitemid 24022593)
2. Bauer MW (2005) Distinguishing red and green biotechnology: cultivation effects of the elite press. Int J Public Opin Res 17(1):63-89 (Pubitemid 41236885)
3. Berube DM, Cummings CL, Cacciatore M, Scheufele D, Kalin J (2011) Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: expert Delphi survey. Nanotoxicology 5(2):236-243. doi:10.3109/17435390.2010.521633
4. Besley J, Kramer V, Priest (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanoparticle Res 10(4):549-558
5. Blok A, Jensen M, Kaltoft P (2008) Social identities and risk: expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Underst Sci 17:189-209
6. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):546-558
7. Burri RV, Bellucci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanaopart Res 10:387-391
8. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395-405
9. Conti J, Satterfield T, Harthorn BH (2011) Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent U.S. nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal 31(11):1734-1748
10. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1573-1585. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5
11. Crow MM, Sarewitz D (2001) Nanotechnology and societal transformation. American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC
12. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz C (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive repository. Risk Anal 13:643-648 (Pubitemid 24012159)
13. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R (1996) What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal 16(4):473-485 (Pubitemid 26327940)
14. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci Technol Hum Values 22(1):98-124 (Pubitemid 127372512)
15. Frewer LJ, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181-1193 (Pubitemid 38581214)
16. Frewer LJ, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, Rowe G, Siegrist M, Vereijken C (2011a) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22(8):442-456
17. Frewer LJ, Wentholt MTA, Marvin HJP, Ooms BW, Fischer ARH, Coles D, Rowe G (2011b) The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: some lessons learned. Technol Forecast Soc. doi:10.10/16/j.techfore. 2011.05.005
18. Gaskell G, Bauer M, Durant J, Allum N (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S. Science 285(5426):384-387 (Pubitemid 29343955)
19. Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, Hampel J et al (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal 24(1):185-194 (Pubitemid 38269379)
20. Gower J (1975) Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40(1):33-51
21. Grice JW (2002) Idiogrid: software for the management and analysis of repertory grids. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 34:338-341
22. Grice JW, Assad KK (2009) Generalized procrustes analysis: A tool for exploring aggregates and persons. Appl Multivar Res 13(1):93-112
23. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2011) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Underst Sci. doi:10.1177/0963662510392485
24. Hagemann K, Scholderer J (2009) Hot potato: expert-consumer differences in the perception of a second-generation novel food. Risk Anal 29(7):1041-1055
25. Henson S, Annou M, Cranfield J, Ryks J (2008) Understanding consumer attitudes toward food technologies in Canada. Risk Anal 28(6):1601-1617
26. Ho SS, Dietram A, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33:167-200. doi:10.1177/1075547010380386
27. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Expert and lay judgements of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12:215-232
28. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240-267 (Pubitemid 41795481)
29. Lewith GT, Chan J (2002) An exploratory qualitative study to investigate how patients evaluate complementary and conventional medicine. Complement Ther Med 10(2):69-77
30. Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2(1):43-60
31. Messina F, Saba A, Turrini A, Raats M (2008) Older people's perceptions towards conventional and functional yoghurts through the repertory grid method: A cross-country study. Br Food J 110(8):790-804
32. Mireaux M, Cox DN, Cotton A, Evans G (2007) An adaptation of repertory grid methodology to evaluate Australian consumers' perceptions of food products produced by novel technologies. Food Qual Prefer 18(6):834-848 (Pubitemid 46760808)
33. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):95-98
34. Priest S (2006) The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanoparticle Res 8(5):563-568 (Pubitemid 44744641)
35. Priest SH, Greenhalgh T (2011) Nanotechnology as an experiment in democracy: How do citizens form opinions about technology and policy? J Nanoparticle Res 13:1521-1531.doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0229-y
36. Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 12(1):11-20
37. Roco MC (2003) Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 5(3-4):181-189
38. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanoparticle Res 7(1):1-13 (Pubitemid 40537820)
39. Ronteltap A, Fischer A, Tobi H (2011) Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies-converging societal response research? J Nanoparticle Res 1-12. doi:10.1007/s11051-011-0473-1
40. Rowe G, Lambert N, Bowling A, Ebrahim S, Wakeling I, Thomson R (2005) Assessing patients' preferences for treatments for angina using a modified repertory grid method. Soc Sci Med 60(11):2585-2595 (Pubitemid 40462382)
41. Russell CG, Cox DN (2004) Understanding middle-aged consumers' perceptions of meat using repertory grid methodology. Food Qual Prefer 15(4):317-329 (Pubitemid 38262885)
42. Salerno M, Landoni P, Verganti R (2008) Designing foresight studies for nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) future developments. Technol Forecast Soc 75(8):1202-1223
43. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4(11):752-758
44. Schaffalitzky E, Ni Mhurchadha S, Gallagher P, Hofkamp S, MacLachlan M, Wegener ST (2009) Identifying the values and preferences of prosthetic users: A case study series using the repertory grid technique. Prosthet Orthot Int 33(2):157-166
45. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659-667 (Pubitemid 41767366)
46. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks morethan the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2(12):732-734 (Pubitemid 350223352)
47. Sheetz T, Vidal J, Pearson TD, Lozano K (2005) Nanotechnology: Awareness and societal concerns. Technol Soc 27(3):329-345 (Pubitemid 40935975)
48. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007a) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging:the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459-466 (Pubitemid 47374891)
49. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007b) Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59-69 (Pubitemid 46411634)
50. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C (2008) Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51(2):283-290
51. Sjöberg L (1999) Risk perception by the public and by experts: A dilemma in risk management. Res Hum Ecol 6(2):1-9 (Pubitemid 30063383)
52. Stampfli N, Siegrist M, Kastenholz H (2010) Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: A path model analysis. J Risk Res 13(3):353-365
53. Tio J, LaCaze A, Cottrell WN (2007) Ascertaining consumer perspectives of medication information sources using a modified repertory grid technique. Pharm World Sci 29(2):73-80
54. van de Kerkhof M, Cuppen E, Hisschemö ller M (2009) The repertory grid to unfold conflicting positions: the case of a stakeholder dialogue on prospects for hydrogen. Technol Forecast Soc 76(3):422-432
55. van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P (2005) Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual Prefer 16(3):181-201 (Pubitemid 40103812)
56. van Kleef E, Fischer ARH, Khan M, Frewer LJ (2010) Risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phone and base station technology in Bangladesh. Risk Anal 30:1002-1015
57. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: About god, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12(2):373-381
58. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20(2): 195-206
59. Wakeling IN, Raats MM, MacFie HJH (1992) A comparison of consensus tests for generalised procrustes analysis. J Sens Stud 7:91-96
60. Webster K, Jardine C, Cash SB, McMullen L (2010) Risk ranking: investigating expert and public differences in evaluating food safety hazards. J Food Prot 73(10):1875-1885
61. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter EA, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB (2000) The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a vovel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Appl Anim Behav Sci 67:193-215 (Pubitemid 30172026)
62. Wright D, Androuchko L (1996) Telemedicine and developing countries. J Telemed Telecare 2:63-70 (Pubitemid 126700955)
63. Yawson RM, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33(4):299-322