Literature DB >> 17362400

Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards.

Michael Siegrist1, Carmen Keller, Hans Kastenholz, Silvia Frey, Arnim Wiek.   

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.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17362400     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  28 in total

1.  The communication challenges presented by nanofoods.

Authors:  Timothy V Duncan
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2011-10-30       Impact factor: 39.213

2.  Nanotechnology and society. New insights into public perceptions.

Authors:  Steven C Currall
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 39.213

3.  Avoiding empty rhetoric: engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies.

Authors:  Renee Kyle; Susan Dodds
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  The public option. A possible change in US regulatory protocol for genetically modified organisms: compromised or enhanced objectivity?

Authors:  Jennifer Kuzma; Zahra Meghani
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2009-11-13       Impact factor: 8.807

5.  Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.

Authors:  Terre Satterfield; Milind Kandlikar; Christian E H Beaudrie; Joseph Conti; Barbara Herr Harthorn
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2009-09-20       Impact factor: 39.213

6.  Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis.

Authors:  Nidhi Gupta; Arnout R H Fischer; Ivo A van der Lans; Lynn J Frewer
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 2.253

7.  Scientific research and the public trust.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2010-08-29       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Corley; Dietram A Scheufele; Qian Hu
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 2.253

9.  The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology.

Authors:  Johannes Simons; René Zimmer; Carl Vierboom; Ingo Härlen; Rolf Hertel; Gaby-Fleur Böl
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2009-05-20       Impact factor: 2.253

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

Authors:  Nick Pidgeon; Barbara Herr Harthorn; Karl Bryant; Tee Rogers-Hayden
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2008-12-07       Impact factor: 39.213

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.