Presenting Futures
The ideas and imagery about the future that characterize nanotechnology today are shaped by multiple values and agendas which influence public investments,business strategies, infrastructure design, and public debate. Presenting Futures highlights a varie
- PDF / 372,910 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 441 x 666 pts Page_size
- 52 Downloads / 218 Views
What Drives Public Acceptance of Nanotechnology? Steven C. Currall, Eden B. King, Neal Lane, Juan Madera and Stacy Turner
Nanotechnology promoters routinely voice concern that their envisioned futures for government research investments and commercial products are vulnerable to a potentially unreceptive public (Meyyappan, ch. 20). A common goal among those seeking to facilitate nanotechnology adoption is to avoid public rejection of the emerging technology, as in the oft cited case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (see Williams, ch. 22). Currall and colleagues suggest that public resistance to GMOs resulted from “overreactions” that were “based on rumor and supposition.” To help ensure that the development of nanotechnology is not slowed, the authors suggest that public perceptions of it should be “based on objective science and engineering findings” (compare Goorden et al., ch. 14 and Sutcliffe, ch. 16). The authors conducted surveys using hypothetical product descriptions (as does Bennett, ch. 12) to ascertain US public attitudes toward the “risks and benefits” of nanotechnology in comparison to prior disruptive technologies. In clear contrast to other attempts to involve social scientists in public engagement efforts (T¨urk, ch. 8; Goorden et al., ch. 14), their goal is not that public visions should shape the direction of research but that experts should shape public visions of nanotechnology (Kennedy, ch. 1). – Eds.
S.C. Currall University College London, London, UK Originally published in March 2006 in Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 153–155.
E. Fisher et al. (eds.), The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Vol. 1, C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
109
110
S.C. Currall et al.
Abstract How do the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, as viewed by the public, compare with those associated with other technologies such as genetically modified organisms, stem-cell research, biotechnology, and nuclear power? And when deciding to use a specific nanotechnology product, will consumers consider the risks, the benefits, or both? We report the first large-scale empirical analyses of these questions.
Introduction Recent reports indicate that over three hundred nanotechnology-based products have entered the marketplace (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies 2008), and that these products were worth over $32 billion in 2005 (Lux Research 2008). As the public comes into more regular contact with applications of nanotechnology, will its appetite for the benefits of nanotechnology lead to increased support for research? Or will a fixation about the risks of nanotechnology—which could be real or imagined, health- or environment-related—slow progress in the field? Much of the current debate about the future of nanotechnology correctly focuses on the types and magnitude of risks. In July, Andrew Maynard of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, an initiative launched by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts in 2005, published the most comprehe
Data Loading...
