Literature DB >> 19197309

Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States.

Dietram A Scheufele, Elizabeth A Corley, Tsung-jen Shih, Kajsa E Dalrymple, Shirley S Ho.   

Abstract

How do citizens make sense of nanotechnology as more applications reach the market and the mainstream media start to debate the potential risks and benefits of technology? As with many other political and scientific issues, citizens rely on cognitive shortcuts or heuristics to make sense of issues for which they have low levels of knowledge. These heuristics can include predispositional factors, such as ideological beliefs or value systems, and also short-term frames of reference provided by the media or other sources of information. Recent research suggests that 'religious filters' are an important heuristic for scientific issues in general, and nanotechnology in particular. A religious filter is more than a simple correlation between religiosity and attitudes toward science: it refers to a link between benefit perceptions and attitudes that varies depending on respondents' levels of religiosity. In surveys, seeing the benefits of nanotechnology is consistently linked to more positive attitudes about nanotechnology among less religious respondents, with this effect being significantly weaker for more religious respondents. For this study, we have combined public opinion surveys in the United States with Eurobarometer surveys about public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe to compare the influence of religious beliefs on attitudes towards nanotechnology in the United States and Europe. Our results show that respondents in the United States were significantly less likely to agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable than respondents in many European countries. These moral views correlated directly with aggregate levels of religiosity in each country, even after controlling for national research productivity and measures of science performance for high-school students.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19197309     DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2008.361

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol        ISSN: 1748-3387            Impact factor:   39.213


  4 in total

1.  Communication. Social values and the governance of science.

Authors:  George Gaskell; Edna Einsiedel; William Hallman; Susanna Hornig Priest; Jonathan Jackson; Johannus Olsthoorn
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-12-23       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous?

Authors:  Anthony A Leiserowitz
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.000

3.  Who is winning the global nanorace?

Authors:  Angela Hullmann
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 39.213

4.  Scientists worry about some risks more than the public.

Authors:  Dietram A Scheufele; Elizabeth A Corley; Sharon Dunwoody; Tsung-Jen Shih; Elliott Hillback; David H Guston
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2007-11-25       Impact factor: 39.213

  4 in total
  25 in total

1.  Adding to the mix: integrating ELSI into a National Nanoscale Science and Technology Center.

Authors:  David J Bjornstad; Amy K Wolfe
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Defining Nano, Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine: Why Should It Matter?

Authors:  Priya Satalkar; Bernice Simone Elger; David M Shaw
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Technologies and religions.

Authors:  Chris Toumey
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 39.213

4.  Public Attitudes toward Consent and Data Sharing in Biobank Research: A Large Multi-site Experimental Survey in the US.

Authors:  Saskia C Sanderson; Kyle B Brothers; Nathaniel D Mercaldo; Ellen Wright Clayton; Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Sharon A Aufox; Murray H Brilliant; Diego Campos; David S Carrell; John Connolly; Pat Conway; Stephanie M Fullerton; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Carol R Horowitz; Gail P Jarvik; David Kaufman; Terrie E Kitchner; Rongling Li; Evette J Ludman; Catherine A McCarty; Jennifer B McCormick; Valerie D McManus; Melanie F Myers; Aaron Scrol; Janet L Williams; Martha J Shrubsole; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Maureen E Smith; Ingrid A Holm
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  The new deficit model.

Authors:  Simon Brown
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 39.213

Review 6.  Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective.

Authors:  Mélanie Auffan; Jérôme Rose; Jean-Yves Bottero; Gregory V Lowry; Jean-Pierre Jolivet; Mark R Wiesner
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2009-09-13       Impact factor: 39.213

7.  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

8.  Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology.

Authors:  Shirley S Ho; Dietram A Scheufele; Elizabeth A Corley
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 2.253

9.  Communicating Synthetic Biology: from the lab via the media to the broader public.

Authors:  Nicole Kronberger; Peter Holtz; Wolfgang Kerbe; Ewald Strasser; Wolfgang Wagner
Journal:  Syst Synth Biol       Date:  2009-10-10

10.  Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on U.S. public perceptions of synthetic biology.

Authors:  Eleonore Pauwels
Journal:  Syst Synth Biol       Date:  2009-10-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.