This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Macoubrie, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government

North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8104, 204 Winston Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695-8104, USA, jane_mac{at}ncsu.edu

Public perceptions of emergent technologies have become increasingly important to understand, in part due to the worldwide backlash against genetically modified foods, which effectively stalled a new industry. In this context, and given the predicted importance of nanotechnology, this article reports an investigation of US citizens' concerns about nanotechnology development. The study investigated both the perceptions of informed citizens and the reasoning basis underlying concerns, as well as explored public concerns in relation to four projected applications of nanotechnology. Two of the applications investigated were thought to be potentially controversial and, thus, perhaps particularly important to formation of public opinion. Results presented here include concerns that were consistent across the study sample, and concerns specific to different regions of the United States. The study found low trust in government to manage risks, and that medical and industrial uses were related to lowest trust in government to manage risks. Higher education levels were also related to lower trust in government to effectively manage risks. Study participants' concerns were largely based on experiential knowledge about past "breakthroughs" whose limitations and negative effects were poorly understood initially, and even when once known, were poorly managed.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 15, No. 2, 221-241 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0963662506056993


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Liu and S. Priest Understanding public support for stem cell research: media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors Public Understanding of Science, November 1, 2009; 18(6): 704 - 718. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Valerie Burri Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland Public Understanding of Science, September 1, 2009; 18(5): 498 - 511. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Landau, C. R. Groscurth, L. Wright, and C. M. Condit Visualizing nanotechnology: the impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology Public Understanding of Science, May 1, 2009; 18(3): 325 - 337. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Rogers-Hayden and N. Pidgeon Moving engagement "upstream"? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry Public Understanding of Science, July 1, 2007; 16(3): 345 - 364. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Schibeci and J. Harwood Stimulating authentic community involvement in biotechnology policy in Australia Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 245 - 255. [Abstract] [PDF]