Comparison of nanotechnology acceptance in Turkey and Switzerland

International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2013, Pages

  Öner, M Atilla ^a   Karaca, Fatih ^b   Beşer, Senem Göl ^a   Yildirmaz, Hakki ^c  

^a YEDITEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b ISTANBUL AREL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c T Bank Human Resources Department   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Nanotechnology; Switzerland; Turkey; Youth foresight

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899858825     PISSN: 02198770     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S0219877013400075     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bak, H. (2001). Education and public attitudes toward science: Implications for the "deficit model" of education and support for science and technology. Social Sciences Quarterly, 82, 4: 779-793.
2. Besley, J. C., Kramer, V. L. and Priest, S. H. (2008). Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10: 549-558.
3. Cobb, M. D. and Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6: 395-405.
4. Cox, D. N. and Evans, G. (2008). Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers' fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food Quality and Preference, 19: 704-710.
5. Dainelli, D., Gontard, N., Spyropoulos, D., Beuken, E. Z. and Tobback, P. (2008). Active and intelligent food packaging: Legal aspects and safety concerns. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19: S103-S112.
6. De Azeredo, H. M. C. (2009). Nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Food Research International, 42: 1240-1253.
7. Dreyer, M., Renn, O., Cope, S. and Frewer, L. J. (2009). Including social impact assessment in food safety governance. Food Control, doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.05.007.
8. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13: 1-17.
9. Fischer, A. R. H. and Frewer, L. J. (2009). Consumer familiarity with foods and the perception of risks and benefits. Food Quality and Preference, 20: 576-585.
10. Hailu, G., Boecker, A., Henson, S. and Cranfield, J. (2009). Consumer valuation of functional foods and nutraceuticals in Canada. A conjoint study using probiotics. Appetite, 52: 257-265.
11. Henson, S. (1995). Demand-side constraints on the introduction of new food technologies - the case of food irradiation. Food Policy, 20, 2: 111-127.
12. Hullmann, A. (2006). The economic development of nanotechnology - An indicators based analysis. European Commission, DG Research, "Nano S&T - Convergent Science and Technologies" unit, 28 November 2006, can be accessed at http://cordis.europa.eu./nanotechnology, accessed on January 10, 2011.
13. Joseph, T. and Morrison, M. (2006). Nanotechnology in agriculture and food, Nanoforum Report. Available: http://www.nanoforum.org/dateien/temp/ nanotechnologyinagricultureandfood.pdf, accessed on January 15, 2011.
14. Kuzma, J. and Verhage, P. (2006). Nanotechnology in agriculture and food production. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC.
15. 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: 240-265.
16. Lopez-Rubio, A., Gavara, R. and Lagaron, J. M. (2006). Bioactive packaging: Turning foods into healthier foods through biomaterials. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 17: 567-575.
17. Macoubrie, J. (2006). Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15: 221-241.
18. Malanowski, N. and Zweck, A. (2007). Bridging the gap between foresight and market research: Integrating methods to assess the economic potential of nanotechnology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 74: 1805-1822.
19. Michelson, E. S. and Rejeski, D. (2006). Falling through the cracks? Public perception, risk and the oversight of emerging Nanotechnologies, available on site: www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/falling-through- cracks-public/ accessed at May 16, 2011.
20. Miyazaki, K. and Islam, N. (2007). Nanotechnology systems of innovation - An analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation, 27: 661-675.
21. Munshi, D., Kurian, P., Bartlett, R. V. and Lakhtakia, A. (2007). A map of the nanoworld: Sizing up the science, politics, and business of the infinitesimal. Futures, 39: 432-452.
22. NanoTürkiye (2011). Available on site: http://www.nanoturkiye.net/ 2011/01/27/ accessed at October 31, 2011.
23. Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D. and Ulph, F. (2007). Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: How young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments. Health, Risk and Society, 9, 2: 159-171.
24. Nickols-Richardson, S. M. (2007). Nanotechnology: Implications for food and nutrition professionals. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 107, 9: 1494-1497.
25. Pliner, P. and Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19: 105-120.
26. Priest, S. H. (1995). Information equity, public understanding of science and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication, 45, 1: 39-54.
27. Renn, O. and Roco, M. C. (2006). Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8: 153-191.
28. Robbins, R. (2001). Overburdening risk: Policy framework and the public uptake of gene technology debate. Public Understanding of Science, 10: 19-36.
29. Royal Soceity and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainities. Royal Society, London.
30. Sanguansri, P. and Augustin, M. A. (2006). Nanoscale materials development - A food industry perspective. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 17: 547-556.
31. Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29: 2093-2106.
32. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20: 195-203.
33. 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: 459-466.
34. 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: 283-290.
35. Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N. and Kastenholz, H. (2008). Consumers' willingness to buy functional foods: The influence of carrier, benefit and trust. Appetite, 51: 526-529.
36. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. Heuristic and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman, eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 397-420.
37. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 2: 311-322.
38. Smith, S. E. S., Hosgood, H. D., Michelson, E. S. and Stowe, M. H. (2008). Americans' nanotechnology risk perception: Assessing opinion change. Research and Analysis, 12, 3: 459-473.
39. Sozer, N. and Kokini, J. L. (2009). Nanotechnology and its applications in the food sector. Trends in Biotechnology, 27: 82-89.
40. Tanaka, Y. (2004). Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Analysis, 24: 1575-1583.
41. TUBITAK (2011). Available on site: http://www.biltek.tubitak.gov.tr/ bdergi/yeniufuk/icerik/nanoteknoloji.pdf (accessed at May 4, 2011).
42. Vandermoere, F., Blanchemanche, S., Bieberstein, A., Marette, S. and Roosen, J. (2009). The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: The hidden role of views on science, technology and nature, Public Understanding of Science, 1-12, doi: 10.1177/0963662509350139.