Public Attitudes Towards Nanotechnology-Enabled Cognitive Enhancement in the United States

Hays, Sean A.; Miller, Clark A.; Cobb, Michael D.

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1787-9_3

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the public has been asked for examples of nanotechnology, it has elicited positive images of miniaturised products such as computers. [18][19][20] In particular, an Australian survey found public perceptions of nanotechnology were focused on medical or implant devices; microtechnology/ miniaturisation; small robots; computing or computing components; and cosmetic or healthcare products. 19 In contrast, public opinion surveys have found perceptions of substances defined as chemicals as predominantly negative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the risk from nanomaterials perceived as different from the risk of ‘chemicals’ by the Australian public?

Capon

Rolfe

Gillespie

et al. 2016

Public Health Research & Pr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Manufactured nanomaterials in Australia are managed predominantly through existing chemical regulatory frameworks. Many regulators in Australia have suggested the framing of manufactured nanomaterials as 'chemicals' when communicating about manufactured nanomaterials to the general public. This paper aims to determine whether the Australian public perception of manufactured nanomaterials differs to that of chemicals, and to examine the relationship between attitudes towards chemicals and perceptions of nanomaterial risk. Methods:We undertook a computer-assisted telephone interview survey of the Australian public. Analysis was undertaken using descriptive, paired tests of proportion, paired t-test and logistic regression techniques. We explored perceptions of nanomaterial risk and their relationship to perceptions of chemical risk and 'chemical attitudes'. Results:We found that the public perceives nanomaterials in a more favourable light than it does chemicals. Perception of risk from chemicals had the greatest association with perceived nanomaterial risk (adjusted odds ratios between 0.1 and 0.2), and attitudes to chemicals were associated with perception of nanomaterial risk in some cases. Conclusion:Risk communicators and policy makers need to consider the differences and associations between nanomaterials and chemicals when addressing the regulatory aspects of nanomaterials with the public. This is relevant for communication strategies that attempt to normalise the risks from nanomaterials compared with those of chemicals, especially as nanomaterials are perceived to be less risky than chemicals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the risk from nanomaterials perceived as different from the risk of ‘chemicals’ by the Australian public?

Capon

Rolfe

Gillespie

et al. 2016

Public Health Research & Pr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implants on the other hand have been studied in terms of their ability to restore previously lost senses and abilities (Topol, 2012), and in terms of how they allow users to go beyond the limitations of normal abilities (Prensky, 2009). On this note scholars have looked at: the ethical issues associated with implants (Hays, Miller and Cobb, 2013) in addition to their high prices (Hays et al, 2013) -meaning that not everyone is and will be able to afford the technology; the human body and possible rejection of implants (Marcus and Koch 2014); and electrical currents (Marcus and Koch, 2014;Swan 2012).…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotions toward cognitive enhancement technologies and the body – Attitudes and willingness to use

Rousi

Renko

2020

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Importantly, the participants escaped the affective and cognitive pathologies often documented in small group decision making in which original majorities or particularly forceful individuals determine outcomes. The resulting attitudes toward nanotechnologies for human enhancement reveal unease with enhancement technologies existing alongside hope for nano-enabled therapies (Cobb, 2011;Hays et al, 2013) and concern for issues of equity underlying policy formulation (Bal, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States

Guston

2014

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews efforts of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) to begin to build capacity for public engagement with science in the United States. First, the paper sets a context in the US of the current challenges to democracy and for science. It then reviews the literature on the accomplishments of the National Citizens' Technology Forum (NCTF) on nanotechnology and human enhancement, held in 2008, as well as some caveats that emerged from that enterprise. It concludes with a brief discussion of two kinds of activities - participation in the World Wide Views process organized by the Danish Board of Technology, and methodological innovations that include more concrete and experiential modes of engagement - that have spun off from the NCTF.

show abstract

Public Attitudes Towards Nanotechnology-Enabled Cognitive Enhancement in the United States

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

Is the risk from nanomaterials perceived as different from the risk of ‘chemicals’ by the Australian public?

Is the risk from nanomaterials perceived as different from the risk of ‘chemicals’ by the Australian public?

Emotions toward cognitive enhancement technologies and the body – Attitudes and willingness to use

Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About