Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom

被引:11
作者
Pidgeon, Nick [1 ]
Harthorn, Barbara Herr [2 ]
Bryant, Karl [3 ,4 ]
Rogers-Hayden, Tee [5 ]
机构
[1] Cardiff Univ, Sch Psychol, Cardiff CF10 3AT, S Glam, Wales
[2] Univ Calif Santa Barbara, NSF Ctr Nanotechnol Soc, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
[3] SUNY Albany, Dept Sociol, New Paltz, NY 12561 USA
[4] SUNY Albany, Womens Studies Program, New Paltz, NY 12561 USA
[5] Univ E Anglia, Sch Environm Sci, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk, England
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
TECHNOLOGIES; PERCEPTION; ENGAGEMENT;
D O I
10.1038/NNANO.2008.362
中图分类号
TB3 [工程材料学];
学科分类号
0805 ; 080502 ;
摘要
Emerging nanotechnologies pose a new set of challenges for researchers, governments, industries and citizen organizations that aim to develop effective modes of deliberation and risk communication early in the research and development process. These challenges derive from a number of issues including the wide range of materials and devices covered by the term 'nanotechnology', the many different industrial sectors involved, the fact that many areas of nanotechnology are still at a relatively early stage of development, and uncertainty about the environmental, health and safety impacts of nanomaterials(1). Public surveys(2-8) have found that people in the United States and Europe currently view the benefits of nanotechnologies as outweighing their risks although, overall, knowledge about nanotechnology remains very low. However, surveys cannot easily uncover the ways that people will interpret and understand the complexities of nanotechnologies (or any other topic about which they know very little) when asked to deliberate about it in more depth, so new approaches to engaging the public are needed. Here, we report the results of the first comparative United States-United Kingdom public engagement experiment. Based upon four concurrent half-day workshops debating energy and health nanotechnologies we find commonalities that were unexpected given the different risk regulatory histories in the two countries. Participants focused on benefits rather than risks and, in general, had a high regard for science and technology. Application context was much more salient than nation as a source of difference, with energy applications viewed in a substantially more positive light than applications in health and human enhancement in both countries. More subtle differences were present in views about the equitable distribution of benefits, corporate and governmental trustworthiness, the risks to realizing benefits, and in consumerist attitudes.
引用
收藏
页码:95 / 98
页数:4
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 3 HOUS LORDS SEL COM
  • [2] [Anonymous], REPORT MADISON AREA
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2007, 261 GWU
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2004, SEE SCI WHY PUBLIC E
  • [5] Public perception of nanotechnology
    Burri, Regula Valerie
    Bellucci, Sergio
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NANOPARTICLE RESEARCH, 2008, 10 (03) : 387 - 391
  • [6] What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?
    Currall, Steven C.
    King, Eden B.
    Lane, Neal
    Madera, Juan
    Turner, Stacey
    [J]. NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY, 2006, 1 (03) : 153 - 155
  • [7] Cvetkovich G.T., 1999, SOCIAL TRUST MANAGEM
  • [8] EINSIEDEL E, 2004, B SCI TECHNOL SOC, V24, P128
  • [9] *ENG PHYS SCI RES, 2008, REP PUBL DIAL NAN HE
  • [10] RISK AND RECREANCY - WEBER, THE DIVISION-OF-LABOR, AND THE RATIONALITY OF RISK PERCEPTIONS
    FREUDENBURG, WR
    [J]. SOCIAL FORCES, 1993, 71 (04) : 909 - 932