Comparative analysis of nanotechnology awareness in consumers and experts in South Korea

International Journal of Nanomedicine

Volumn 9, Issue , 2014, Pages 21-27

  Kim, Yu Ri ^a   Lee, Eun Jeong ^a   Park, Sung Ha ^b   Kwon, Hyo Jin ^a   An, Seong Soo A ^c   Son, Sang Wook ^a   Seo, Young Rok ^d   Pie, Jae Eun ^e   Yoon, Myoung ^f   Kim, Ja Hei ^f   Kim, Meyoung Kon ^a  

^a Korea University   (South Korea)

^b University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

^c Gachon University   (South Korea)

^d Dongguk University   (South Korea)

^e Anyang University   (South Korea)

^f Korea Consumer Agency   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Comparative analysis; Consumers; Experts; Nanomaterials; Survey

Indexed keywords

NANOMATERIAL; NANOPARTICLE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE SAFETY; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOUTH KOREA;

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; NANOSTRUCTURES; NANOTECHNOLOGY; REPUBLIC OF KOREA;

EID: 84905847704     PISSN: 11769114     EISSN: 11782013     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S57921     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal. 2007;27(1): 59–69.
2. Gupta N, Fischer AR, van der Lans IA, Frewer LJ. Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res. 2012;14(5):857.
3. Manke A, Wang L, Rojanasakul Y. Mechanisms of nanoparticle-induced oxidative stress and toxicity. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:942916.
4. Bhattacharya K, Andón FT, El-Sayed R, Fadeel B. Mechanisms of carbon nanotube-induced toxicity: focus on pulmonary inflammation. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(15):2087–2097.
5. Kim YH, Park HW, Ryoo ZY, Lee H-S, Kim D-H, Lee S. Abnormal effects of unpurified and purified multi-walled carbon nanotubes in A549, Jurkat and THP-1 cell lines. Mol Cell Toxicol. 2012;8(1):103–112.
6. Jang YS, Lee EY, Park Y-H, et al. The potential for skin irritation, phototoxicity, and sensitization of ZnO nanoparticles. Mol Cell Toxicol. 2012;8(2):171–177.
7. Yim WC, Min K, Jung D, Lee B-M, Kwon Y. Cross experimental analysis of microarray gene expression data from volatile organic compounds treated targets. Mol Cell Toxicol. 2011;7(3):233–241.
8. Choi S-J, Lee JK, Jeong J, Choy J-H. Toxicity evaluation of inorganic nanoparticles: considerations and challenges. Mol Cell Toxicol. 2013;9(3):205–210.
9. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(5):548–558.
10. Roco MC. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2003;5(3–4):181–189.
11. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanopart Res. 2005;7:1–13.
12. Salerno M, Landoni P, Verganti R. Designing foresight studies for nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) future developments. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2008;75:1202–1223.
13. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risk, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res. 2004;6:395–405.
14. Commission E. Eurobarometer 55.2. Europeans, Science and Technology. 2001. http://ec.europa.eu/research/press/2001/pr0612en-report.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2014.
15. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G. Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci. 2005;14(1):81–90.
16. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies – examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Comm. 2005;27:240–267.
17. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P. Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal. 1992;12(2):215–232.
18. Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal. 2004;24(5):1289–1299.
19. Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH. Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res. 2008;10(4):549–558.
20. Crow, MM, Sarewitz D. Nanotechnology and societal transformation. In: Teich AH et al, editors. AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 2001. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2001;89–101.
21. Priest S. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res. 2006;8(5):563–568.
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. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4(2): 95–98.
23. Ronteltap A, Fischer AH, Tobi H. Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies–converging societal response research? J Nanopart Res. 2011;13:4399–4410.
24. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CE, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4(11):752–758.
25. Priest SH, Gillespie AW. Seeds of discontent: expert opinion, mass media messages, and the public image of agricultural biotechnology. Sci Eng Ethics. 2000;6(4):529–539.
26. Gunter B, Kinderlerer J, Beyleveld D. The media and public understanding of biotechnology: a survey of scientists and journalists. Sci Commun. 1999;20:373–394.
27. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 30, 2009 on Cosmetic Products (recast). European Parliament and the Council. 2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:342:0059:0209:en:PDF. Accessed June 24, 2014.
28. International Organization for Standardization. Guidance on the Labelling of Manufactured Nano-objects and Products Containing Manufactured Nano-objects. 2010. Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:13830:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed November 4, 2014.
29. Gruère GP. Labeling nano-enabled consumer products. Nano Today. 2011;6(2):117–121.
30. Knébel S, Christoph M. “No Data, no Market?” Challenges to Nano-Information and Nano-Communication along the Value Chain. In: 5th International Nano Regulation Conference; November 25–26, 2009; Rapperswil, Switzerland. Available from: http://www.temas.ch/IMPART/IMPARTProj.nsf/018B06B258A1B6A7C12576CC003C7D11/$FILE/NanoRegulation_5_Report_2009.pdf?OpenElement&enetarea=02. Accessed June 24, 2014.
31. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Pidgeon N, Slovic P. The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In: Pidgeon N, Kasperson R, Slovic P, editors. The Social Amplification of Risk. London: Cambridge University Press; 2003;13–46.
32. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 2000;20(2):195–203.