Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards

Abstract

Public perception of nanotechnology may influence the realization of technological advances. Laypeople's (N=375) and experts' (N=46) perception of 20 different nanotechnology applications and three nonnanotechnology applications were examined. The psychometric paradigm was utilized and applications were described in short scenarios. Results showed that laypeople and experts assessed asbestos as much more risky than nanotechnology applications. Analyses of aggregated data suggested that perceived dreadfulness of applications and trust in governmental agencies are important factors in determining perceived risks. Similar results were observed for experts and laypeople, but the latter perceived greater risks than the former. Analyses of individual data showed that trust, perceived benefits, and general attitudes toward technology influenced the perceived risk of laypeople. In the expert sample, confidence in governmental agencies was an important predictor of risks associated with nanotechnology applications. Results suggest that public concerns about nanotechnology would diminish if measures were taken to enhance laypeople's trust in governmental agencies.

Development of an Interactive Immersion Environment for Engendering Understanding about Nanotechnology

“…Siegrist et al, 2007) and is founded on the following core nanoscientific concepts and principles (Table 1): Nanotubes (often 1nm in diameter but thousands of times longer) tend to aggregate into "bundles" due to "sticky" forces of adhesion arising from their extraordinarily high surface area-to-volume ratios. In addition, their high length-to-diameter ratios could be harmful in a similar fashion to the toxic effects of asbestos on the lungs.…”

“…The student data consisted of a written pre-and posttest (e.g. Gardner, Jones, Taylor, Forrester, & Robertson, 2010;Jones, Andre, Superfine, & Taylor, 2003) Bainbridge, 2002;Cobb & Macoubrie, 2004;Lin et al, 2013;Siegrist, Keller, Kastenholz, Frey, & Weick, 2007). The closed items were statements that students responded to using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (Funke & Reips, 2012;Mytton & Rumbold, 2011) by marking an "X" on a 10-centimeter line ranging from 0 ("Disagree" or "Beneficial") to 10 ("Agree" or "Risky").…”

Environmental Considerations of and Societal Reactions to Nanotechnology in the Food Sector

“…Results of a Swiss study examining a broad set of nanotechnology applications, ranging from water sterilization to ammunition, suggest that lay people perceive the various nanotechnology applications differently [64] . More specifi cally, results showed that lay people perceived applications such as food packaging or water sterilization as more dreaded risks than applications that are not related to food products.…”

“…Lay people differ in their acceptance of nanotechnology, and trust seems to be a factor that infl uences how lay people assess nanotechnology applications [64,66,67] . Participants having trust in the industry and in regulatory agencies assessed the nanotechnology application more positively than participants not having trust.…”

Naming is framing: the public understanding of scientific names

“…Calls for more research and more caution in applying nanotechnology (Maynard, 2008) have been made (Faunce, Murray, Nasu, & Bowman, 2008). In an article discussing the differences between laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards, Siegrist, Keller, Kastenholz, Frey, and Wiek (2007) pay special attention to the remarks of reviewers who question the ability of experts to judge the risks of nanotechnology (see Siegrist et al, 2007, p. 60). These authors conclude (like Kampers, 2009) that experts use their technological knowledge, but they explicitly state that they "…do not make any claims about the accuracy of the experts' assessments" (Siegrist et al, 2007, p. 67).…”