Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications for policy dialogues about emerging technologies

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 247-260

  Satterfield, Terre ^a   Conti, Joe ^b   Harthorn, Barbara Herr ^c   Pidgeon, Nick ^d   Pitts, Anton ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Nanotechnologies; Perceived risk and benefit; Public policy dialogues; Shifting perceptions; Trust and affect

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL POLICY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PERCEPTION; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84883114881     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs084     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Baron, A. S. and Banaji, M. R. (2006) 'The development of implicit attitudes evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood', Psychological Science, 17: 53-8.
2. Berne, R. (2004) 'Towards the conscientious development of ethical nanotechnology', Science and Engineering Ethics, 10: 627-38.
3. Binder, A. R., Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D.A., Shaw, B. R. and Corley, E. A. (2012) 'Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science', Public Understanding of Science, 21: 830-47.
4. Bostrom, A. (2003) 'Future risk communication', Futures, 35: 553-73.
5. Cobb, M. D. and Macoubrie, J. (2004) 'Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust', Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6: 395-405.
6. Conti, J., Satterfield, T. and Harthorn, B. H. (2011) 'Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent U.S. nanotechnology risk perceptions', Risk Analysis, 31: 1734-48.
7. Corner, A. and Pidgeon, N. (2012) 'Chapter 9: Nanotechnologies and Upstream Public Engagement: Dilemmas, Debates, and Prospects?'. In: Barbara, H. H.and John, W. M. (eds) The Social Life of Nanotechnology, pp. 169-194. Oxford: Routledge.
8. Cozzens, S. E. (2010) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Springer.
9. Creed, P. A., Hicks, R. E. and Machin, M. A. (1998) 'Behavioural plasticity and mental health outcomes for long-term unemployed attending occupational training programmes', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71: 171-91.
10. Davies, J. C. (2009) 'Oversight of next generation nanotechnology', Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7316/pen-18.pdf.
11. Dietz, T. and Stern, P. C. (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
12. Earle, T. C. (2010) 'Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research', Risk Analysis, 30: 541-74.
13. Einsiedel, E. (2005) 'In the public eye: The early landscape of nanotechnologies among Canadian and US publics', Online Journal of Nanotechnology, 1.
14. Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J. and Satterfield, T. A. (2000a) 'Gender, race, and perceived risk: The 'white male' effect', Health, Risk and Society, 2: 159-72.
15. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S. M. (2000b) 'The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits', Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13: 1-17.
16. Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L. and Mitcham, C. (2006) 'Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within', Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26: 485-96.
17. Fishkin, J. and Luskin, R. (2005) 'Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion', Acta Politica, 40: 284-298.
18. Freudenburg, W. R. (1993) 'Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions', Social Forces, 71: 909-32.
19. Frewer, L. (1999) 'Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: Implications for emerging technologies', Ambio, 28: 569-74.
20. Frewer, L., Fischer, A. R. H. and Rowe, G. (2011) 'Public engagement with emerging issues in agri-food nanotechnology'. In: Frewer, L. J., Norde, W., Fischer, A. R. H. and Kamper, F. W. H. (eds) Nanotechnology in the Agri-Food Sector, pp. 257-70. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
21. Friedman, S. M. and Egolf, B. P. (2011) 'A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks', Risk Analysis, 31: 1701-17.
22. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N. et al. (2004) 'GM foods and the misperception of risk perception', Risk Analysis, 24: 185-94.
23. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. (2005) 'Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States', Public Understanding of Science, 14: 81-90.
24. Gilbert, N. (2009) 'Nanoparticle safety in doubt', Nature, 460/7258: 937.
25. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. W. and Kahneman, D. (2002) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
26. Goodin, R. E. and Dryzek, J. S. (2006) 'Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics', Politics and Society, 34: 219-44.
27. Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G. et al. (2012) Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. Wiley.
28. Harthorn, B., Shearer, C. and Rogers, J. (2011) 'Exploring ambivalence: Techno-enthusiasm and skepticism in US nanotech deliberations', Engagements, 75.
29. Jasanoff, S. (2003) 'Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science', Minerva, 41: 223-44.
30. Kahan, D. (2010) 'Fixing the communications failure', Nature, 463/7279: 296-7.
31. Kahan, D. M. and Braman, D. (2002) 'More statistics, less persuasion: A cultural theory of gun-risk perceptions', University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151: 1291-327.
32. Kahan, D. M. and Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. and Cohen, G. (2009) 'Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology', Nature Nanotechnology, 4: 87-90.
33. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, G. and Cohen, G. (2007) 'Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental investigation', George Washington Uuniversity Legal Studies Research Paper, 261.
34. Kulinowski, K. (2004) 'Nanotechnology: From "Wow" to "Yuck"?' Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24: 13-20.
35. Kuzma, J. and Priest, S. (2010) 'Nanotechnology, risk, and oversight: Learning lessons from related emerging technologies', Risk Analysis, 30: 1688-98.
36. Lee, C. J., Scheufele, D. A and Lewenstein, B. V. (2005) 'Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology', Science Communication, 27: 240-67.
37. Leiss, W. and Powell, D. A. (2004) Mad Cows and Mother's Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queens University Press.
38. Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (2006) The Construction of Preference. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
39. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. and Welch, N. (2001) 'Risk as feelings', Psychological Bulletin, 127: 267-86.
40. Lorenz, C., von Goetz, N., Scheringer, M., Wormuth, M. and Hungerbühler, K. (2011) 'Potential exposure of German consumers to engineered nanoparticles in cosmetics and personal care products', Nanotoxicology, 5: 12-29.
41. McComas, K. A. and Besley, J. C. (2011) 'Fairness and nanotechnology concern', Risk Analysis, 31: 1749-61.
42. McDaniels, T. L. and Gregory, R. (2004) 'Learning as an objective within a structured risk management decision process', Environmental Science and Technology, 38: 1921-6.
43. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B. and Wynne, B. (2005) 'Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences?', Science Communication, 27: 268-91.
44. Macoubrie, J. (2006) 'Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government', Public Understanding of Science, 15: 221-41.
45. Moon, W. and Balasubramanian, S. K. (2002) 'Public perceptions and willingness-to-pay a premium for non-GM foods in the US and UK', AgBioForum, 4: 221-31.
46. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B., Bryant, K. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2008) 'Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom', Nature Nanotechnology, 4: 95-8.
47. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B., and Satterfield, T. (2009) 'Nanotech: Good or bad?', Chemical Engineer, 822: 37-9.
48. Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B., and Satterfield, T. (2011) 'Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: Emerging technologies, emerging challenges', Risk Analysis, 31: 1694-700.
49. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E. and Slovic, P. (2003) The social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge, UK: CUP.
50. Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. (2004) 'Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs', Risk Analysis, 24: 1475-86.
51. Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. (2005) 'Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?', Risk Analysis, 25: 199-209.
52. Priest, S., Lane, T., Greenhalgh, T., Hand, L. J. and Kramer, V. (2006) 'The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: Opportunities and challenges', Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8: 563-8.
53. Priest, S., Lane, T., Greenhalgh, T., Hand, L. J. and Kramer, V. (2011) 'Envisioning emerging nanotechnologies: A three-year panel study of South Carolina citizens', Risk Analysis, 31: 1718-33.
54. Priest, S., Greenhalgh, T. and Kramer, V. (2009) 'Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology', Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12: 11-20.
55. Rip, A. (2006) 'Folk theories of nanotechnologists', Science as Culture, 15: 349-65.
56. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. and Camerer, C. (1998) 'Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust', Academy of Management Review, 23: 393-404.
57. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, accessed 22 August 2012.
58. Rozin, P. and Royzman, E. B. (2001) 'Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion', Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5: 296-320.
59. Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E. H., Conti, J. and Harthorn, B. H. (2009) 'Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies', Nature Nanotechnology, 4: 752-8.
60. Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M. and Slovic, P. (2004) 'Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology', Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 24: 1289-99.
61. Scheufele, D. A. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2005) 'The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies', Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7: 659-67.
62. Schummer, J. (2009) 'Cultural diversity in nanotechnology ethics'. In: Allhoff, F. and Lin, P. (eds) Nanotechnology and Society, pp. 265-80. Springer.
63. Schutz, H. and Wiedemann, P. M. (2008) 'Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology', Public Understanding of Science, 17: 369-79.
64. Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H. and Keller, C. (2010) 'Predicting the future: Review of public perception studies of nanotechnology', Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 16: 837-46.
65. Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H. and Keller, C. (2008) 'Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging', Appetite, 51: 283-90.
66. Siegrist, M., Cousin, M. E., Kastenholz, H. and Wiek, A. (2007) 'Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust', Appetite, 49: 459-66.
67. Siegrist, M., Earle, T. C. and Gutscher, H. (2010) Trust in Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. London: Earthscan/James and James.
68. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S. and Wiek, A. (2007) 'Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards', Risk Analysis, 27: 59-69.
69. Slovic, P. (1987) 'Perception of risk', Science, 236/4799: 280-5.
70. Slovic, P. (1993) 'Perceived risk trust and democracy', Risk Analysis, 13: 675-82.
71. Slovic, P. (1996) 'Perception of risk from radiation', Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68: 165-80.
72. Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.
73. Tyshenko, M. G., Phillips, K. P., Mehta, M., Poirier, R. and Leiss, W. (2008) 'Risk communication of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Improving knowledge translation and transfer'. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, 11: 345-350.
74. Vandermoere, F., Blanchemanche, S., Bieberstein, A., Marette, S. and Roosen, J. (2010) 'The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: About God. techno-scientific progress and interfering with nature', Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12: 373-81.
75. Vandermoere, F., Blanchemanche, S., Bieberstein, A., Marette, S. and Roosen, J. (2011) 'The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature', Public Understanding of Science, 20: 195-206.
76. Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A. and Dietz, T. (2009) 'The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception', Risk Analysis, 29: 425-37.
77. Whitmarsh, L., Dietz, T. and Stern, P. C., (eds), (2009) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
78. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: Demos.
79. Wynne, B. (2011) 'Lab work goes social. and vice versa: Strategising public engagement processes', Science and Engineering Ethics, 17: 791-800.
80. Yeung, R. M. and Morris, J. (2001) 'Food safety risk: Consumer perception and purchase behaviour', British Food Journal, 103: 170-187.