Literature DB >> 19197310

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

Nick Pidgeon, Barbara Herr Harthorn, Karl Bryant, Tee Rogers-Hayden.   

Abstract

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. Public surveys 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19197310     DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2008.362

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


  4 in total

1.  Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards.

Authors:  Michael Siegrist; Carmen Keller; Hans Kastenholz; Silvia Frey; Arnim Wiek
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.000

2.  Rules of engagement.

Authors:  Chris Toumey
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 39.213

3.  What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?

Authors:  Steven C Currall; Eden B King; Neal Lane; Juan Madera; Stacey Turner
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2006-12       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
  26 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.  Democratizing nanotech, then and now.

Authors:  Chris Toumey
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 39.213

3.  Nanotechnology risk communication past and prologue.

Authors:  Ann Bostrom; Ragnar E Löfstedt
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 4.000

4.  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

5.  Communicating chemistry for public engagement.

Authors:  Matthew R Hartings; Declan Fahy
Journal:  Nat Chem       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 24.427

6.  Who or what is 'the public'?

Authors:  Fern Wickson; Ana Delgado; Kamilla Lein Kjølberg
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2010-10-03       Impact factor: 39.213

7.  An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators.

Authors:  Anthony Dudo; LeeAnn Kahlor; Niveen AbiGhannam; Allison Lazard; Ming-Ching Liang
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2014-09-14       Impact factor: 39.213

8.  Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy.

Authors:  Nick Pidgeon; Christina Demski; Catherine Butler; Karen Parkhill; Alexa Spence
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  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

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.