Going public: Risk, trust and public understandings of nanotechnology

Nanotechnology Risk, Ethics and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 196-212

  Barnett, Julie ^a   Carr, Anna ^b   Clift, Roland ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

^b Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources ^*  (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925753687     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781849772051     Document Type: Chapter

References (55)

1. Bainbridge, W. S. (2002) ‘Public attitudes toward nanotechnology’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol 4, pp561–570
2. Barnes, M., Newman, J., Knops, A. and Sullivan, H. (2003) ‘Constituting “the public” in public participation’, Public Administration, vol 81, pp379–399
3. Bennett, P. and Calman, K. (1999) Risk Communication and Public Health, Oxford, Oxford University Press
4. Breakwell, G. M. and Barnett, J. (2001) The Impact of Social Amplification on Risk Communication, Contract Research Report 322/2001, London, Sudbury, Health and Safety Executive
5. Breakwell, G. M. and Barnett, J. (2002) ‘The significance of uncertainty and conflict: developing a social psychological theory of risk communications’, New Review of Social Psychology, vol 2.1, pp107–114
6. Cabinet Office (2002) Risk: Improving Government’s Capacity to Handle Risk and Uncertainty, Strategy Unit Report
7. Commission of the European Communities (2004) Communication from the Commission: Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology, Brussels, 12.5.04 COM(2004) 338 final
8. Couper, M. P. (2000) ‘Web Surveys: a review of issues and approaches’, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol 64, pp464–481
9. Cvetkovich, G. and Löftstedt, R. E. (1999) Social Trust and the Management of Risk, London, Earthscan
10. Department of Trade and Industry (2005) Science in Society: Findings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research, London, MORI
11. Durant, J., Bauer, M., Gaskell, G., Midden, C., Liakopoulos, M. and Scholten, L. (1999) ‘Two cultures of public understanding of science and technology in Europe’, in Dierkes, M. and von Grote, C. (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, London, Routledge
12. Durodié, W. (2003) ‘The true cost of precautionary chemicals regulation’, Risk Analysis, vol 23, pp389–428
13. ETC (2004a) ‘Nanotech news in living colour: an update on white papers, red flags, green goo, grey goo (and red herrings)’ Communique, no. 85
14. ETC (2004b) ‘UK Report: More Hits than Misses on Nanotech’, news release, 29 July 2004
15. Fiorino, D. (1990) ‘Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms’, Science Technology and Human Values, vol 15, pp226–243
16. Frewer, L. J., Miles, S. et al (2002) ‘Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty: the need for effective risk communication’, Public Understanding of Science, vol 11, pp363–372
17. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M. et al (2000) ‘Biotechnology and the European public’. Nature Biotechnology, vol 18, pp935–938
18. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T. et al (2005) ‘Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States’, Public Understanding of Science, vol 14, pp81–90
19. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. and Wynne, B. (2000) Wising Up: the Public and New Technologies, Lancaster, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University
20. Grove-White, R., Kearnes, M., Miller, P., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J. and Wynne, B. (2004) Bio-to-Nano? Learning the Lessons, Interrogating the Comparison, A working paper by the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University and Demos
21. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. et al (1997) Uncertain World: Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University, pp1–61
22. Hampel, J., Klinke, A. and Renn, O. (2000) ‘Beyond “red” hope and “green” distrust: public perception of genetic engineering in Germany’, Politeia, vol. 16(60), pp68–82
23. HM Government (2001) The Government Response to the BSE Enquiry, London, The Stationery Office
24. HM Government (2005) Response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Report: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, London
25. Hobson-West, P. (2003) ‘Understanding vaccination resistance: moving beyond risk’, Health Risk and Society, vol 5, 273–283
26. Horlick-Jones, T., Sime, J., Pidgeon, N. (2004) ‘Social dynamics of environmental perceptions: implications for risk communication and practice’, in Pidgeon, N. Kasperson, R. E. and Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
27. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. et al (2004) ‘A deliberative future? An independent evaluation of theGMnation?’, Working Paper 04-02 of the Centre for Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia, Norwich, at www.uea.ac.uk/env/pur
28. House of Lords (2000) Third Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, London, The Stationery Office
29. Kasperson, R. E. (1992) ‘The social amplification of risk – progress in developing an integrative framework’, in Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (eds) Social Theories of Risk, Westport, CT, Praeger, pp. 153–178
30. Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. et al (2004) ‘The social amplification of risk: assessing a decade of research’ in Pidgeon, N. Kasperson, R. E. and Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
31. Löftstedt, R. E. and Renn, O. (1997) ‘The Brent Spar controversy: an example of risk communication gone wrong’, Risk Analysis, vol 17.2, pp131–136
32. Mayer, S. (2002) ‘From genetic modification to nanotechnology: the dangers of “sound science” ’, in Gilland, T. (ed) Science: Can We Trust the Experts?, London, Hodder and Stoughton, pp1–15
33. Mehta, M. D. (2004) ‘From biotechnology to nanotechnology: what can we learn from earlier technologies?’ Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, vol 24, pp34–39 (reproduced in this volume, Chapter 10)
34. Michael, M, and Carter, S. (2001) ‘The facts about fictions and vice versa: public understanding about human genetics’, Science as Culture, vol 10, pp5–32
35. Murdock, G., Petts, J. and Horlick Jones, T. (2004) ‘After amplification: rethinking the role of the media in risk communication’, in Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E. and Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
36. NSF (2001) Roco, M. C. and Bainbridge, W. (eds) Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Dordrecht, Kluwer.
37. NSF (2003) Roco, M. C. and Bainbridge, W. (eds) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, Kluwer, Dordrecht
38. Petts, J. (2004) ‘Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management’, Journal of Risk Research, vol 7, pp115–133
39. Petts, J., Horlick-Jones, T. and Murdoch, G. (2001) Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and the Public, Health and Safety Executive Contract Research Report 329/ 2001, Sudbury, HSE Books
40. Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (2003) ‘Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation’, Risk Analysis, vol 23, pp961–972
41. Renn, O. (2004) ‘Public perception of nanotechnology’, lecture on the Workshop at the Research Centre Karlsruhe: Risk Perception and Risk Communication in the Field of Nanotechnology, 8 December 2004, www.itas.fzk.de/v/nano/abstr/renn04a.htm
42. Royal Academy of Engineering (2002) The Societal Aspects of Risk, London, The Royal Academy of Engineering
43. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998) Setting Environmental Standards, 21st Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London, The Stationery Office
44. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, London, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering
45. Royal Society (2004) Science in Society, London, The Royal Society
46. Schuler, E. (2004) A Prospective Look at Risk Communication in the Nanotechnology Field, The IPTS Report, no. 82, Seville, JRC
47. Sjöberg, L. (2000) ‘Perceived risk and tampering with nature’, Journal of Risk Research, vol 3, pp353–367
48. Slovic, P. (2000) The Perception of Risk, London, Earthscan
49. Stirling A (2004) ‘Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology’ in Leach, M., Scoones, I. and Wynne, B. (eds) Science Citizenship and Globalisation, London, Zed
50. Walls, J., Pidgeon, N., Weyman, A. and Horlick-Jones, T. (2004) ‘Critical trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation’, Health, Risk and Society, vol 6, pp133–150
51. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London, Demos
52. Wood, S., Jones, R. and Geldart, A. (2003) Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology, Swindon, UK, Economic and Social Research Council
53. Wynne, B. (1980) ‘Technology, risk and participation: the social treatment of uncertainty’ in Conrad, J. (ed) Society Technology and Risk, London, Academic Press
54. Wynne, B. (1996) ‘Misunderstood misunderstandings’, in Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (eds) Misunderstanding Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
55. Yearley, S. (2000) ‘Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: two analytic approaches and a case study’, Public Understanding of Science, vol 9, pp105–122