Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes

Authors: Adam Capon, James Gillespie, Margaret Rolfe, Wayne Smith

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Policy makers and regulators are constantly required to make decisions despite the existence of substantial uncertainty regarding the outcomes of their proposed decisions. Understanding stakeholder views is an essential part of addressing this uncertainty, which provides insight into the possible social reactions and tolerance of unpredictable risks. In the field of nanotechnology, large uncertainties exist regarding the real and perceived risks this technology may have on society. Better evidence is needed to confront this issue.

Methods

We undertook a computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) survey of the Australian public and a parallel survey of those involved in nanotechnology from the academic, business and government sectors. Analysis included comparisons of proportions and logistic regression techniques. We explored perceptions of nanotechnology risks both to health and in a range of products. We examined views on four trust actors.

Results

The general public’s perception of risk was significantly higher than that expressed by other stakeholders. The public bestows less trust in certain trust actors than do academics or government officers, giving its greatest trust to scientists. Higher levels of public trust were generally associated with lower perceptions of risk. Nanotechnology in food and cosmetics/sunscreens were considered riskier applications irrespective of stakeholder, while familiarity with nanotechnology was associated with a reduced risk perception.

Conclusions

Policy makers should consider the disparities in risk and trust perceptions between the public and influential stakeholders, placing greater emphasis on risk communication and the uncertainties of risk assessment in these areas of higher concern. Scientists being the highest trusted group are well placed to communicate the risks of nanotechnologies to the public.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Yearley S. Bridging the science? policy divide in urban air-quality management: evaluating ways to make models more robust through public engagement. Environ Plann C Gov Policy. 2006;24(5):701–14.CrossRef
2.
Dietrich H, Schibeci R. Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Underst Sci. 2003;12(4):381–401.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Few R, Brown K, Tompkins EL. Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim Pol. 2007;7(1):46–59.CrossRef
4.
Corley E, Scheufele D, Hu Q. Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res. 2009;11(7):1573–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Duncan TV. The communication challenges presented by nanofoods. Nat Nano. 2011;6(11):683–8.CrossRef
6.
Foss Hansen S, Maynard A, Baun A, Tickner JA. Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology. Nat Nano. 2008;3(8):444–7.CrossRef
7.
Gregory R, Dieckmann N, Peters E, Failing L, Long G, Tusler M. Deliberative disjunction: expert and public understanding of outcome uncertainty. Risk Anal. 2012;32(12):2071–83.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Murashov V, Schulte P, Howard J. Progression of occupational risk management with advances in nanomaterials. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2011;9(1):D12–22.CrossRef
9.
Pidgeon N, Harthorn B, Satterfield T. Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: emerging technologies. Emerging Challenges Risk Analysis. 2011;31(11):1694–700.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Shatkin JA, North W. Perspectives on risks of nanomaterials and nanotechnologies: advancing the science. Risk Anal. 2010;30(11):1627–33.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Williams RA, Kulinowski KM, White R, Louis G. Risk Characterization for Nanotechnology. Risk Anal. 2010;30(11):1671–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Australian Office of Nanotechnology. National Nanotechnology Strategy (NNS) Annual Report 2007-08. 2007.
13.
14.
Wijnhoven SWP, Peijnenburg WJGM, Herberts CA, Hagens WI, Oomen AG, Heugens EHW, et al. Nano-silver – a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment. Nanotoxicology. 2009;3(2):109–38.CrossRef
15.
Beaudrie CH, Kandlikar M. Horses for courses: risk information and decision making in the regulation of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(4):1477–88.CrossRef
16.
Canady RA. The uncertainty of nanotoxicology: report of a society for risk analysis workshop. Risk Anal. 2010;30(11):1663–70.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Maynard AD, Warheit DB, Philbert MA. The New toxicology of sophisticated materials: nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicol Sci. 2011;120 suppl 1:S109–29.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Morris J, Willis J, De Martinis D, Hansen B, Laursen H, Sintes JR, et al. Science policy considerations for responsible nanotechnology decisions. Nat Nano. 2011;6(2):73–7.CrossRef
19.
Vogel D. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. USA: Princeton University Press; 2012.CrossRef
20.
Siegrist M. Predicting the future: review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2010;16(4):837–46.CrossRef
21.
Katz E, Solomon F, Mee W, Lovel R. Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: a case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(5):531–45.CrossRef
22.
Capon A, Smith W, Gillespie JA: Navigating public health chemicals policy in Australia: a policy maker’s and practitioner’s guide. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin 2013, 23(12):217–227.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople’s and Experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal. 2007;27(1):59–69.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie C, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nano. 2009;4(11):752–8.CrossRef
25.
IPSOS Social Research Institute. Community Attitudes Towards Emerging Technology Issues - Nanotechnology. 2012.
26.
Social Psychology Research Unit. 2011 Monitor - The Swinburne National Technology and Society Monitor. 2011.
27.
Cobb M, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res. 2004;6(4):395–405.CrossRef
28.
Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite. 2008;51(2):283–90.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci. 2011;20(2):195–206.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Ho S, Scheufele DA, Corley EA. Value Predispositions, Mass Media, and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology: The Interplay of Public and Experts. Sci Commun September 14 2010 doi:10.1177/1075547010380386
31.
Retzbach A, Marschall J, Rahnke M, Otto L, Maier M. Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(12):6231–44.CrossRef
32.
European Commission (2012): Eurobarometer 73.1 (Jan-Feb 2010). TNS OPINION & SOCIAL, Brussels [Producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5000 Data file Version 4.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.11428
33.
McAllister I, Bean C, Kay Gibson R, Pietsch J. Australian Election Study, 2010. Canberra: The Australian National University; 2011.
34.
Population Survey Development. Pre-Testing in Survey Development: An Australian Bureau of Statistics Perspective. 2001.
35.
Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. USA: Wiley; 2014.
36.
Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T-J, Hillback E, Guston DH. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nano. 2007;2(12):732–4.CrossRef
37.
Siegrist M, Cousin M-E, Kastenholz H, Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite. 2007;49(2):459–66.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nano. 2009;4(2):95–8.CrossRef
39.
40.
41.
42.
Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res. 2010;12(2):373–81.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih T-J, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS. Religious beliefs and public attitudes towards nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nano. 2009;4(2):91–4.CrossRef
44.
Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(5):546–58.CrossRef
45.
Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nano. 2009;4(2):87–90.CrossRef
46.
Stampfli N, Siegrist M, Kastenholz H. Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis. J Risk Res. 2010;13(3):353–65.CrossRef
47.
Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA. From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding Sci October 9 2009  doi:10.1177/0963662509347815.
48.
Conti J, Satterfield T, Harthorn BH. Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent U.S. Nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 2011;31(11):1734–48.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Cobb M. Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(4):1533–48.CrossRef
50.
Market Attitude Research Services. Australian Community Attitudes Held About Nanotechnology - Trends 2005 to 2011. 2011.
51.
Viklund MJ. Trust and risk perception in Western Europe: a cross-national study. Risk Anal. 2003;23(4):727–38.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Earle TC. Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research. Risk Anal. 2010;30(4):541–74.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Bronfman NC, Vázquez EL. A cross-cultural study of perceived benefit versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship. Risk Anal. 2011;31(12):1919–34.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000;20(5):713–20.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Scheufele D, Lewenstein B. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res. 2005;7(6):659–67.CrossRef
56.
Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 1994;14(6):1085–96.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes
Authors
Adam Capon
James Gillespie
Margaret Rolfe
Wayne Smith
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1795-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Quantifying the contribution of changes in healthcare expenditures and smoking to the reversal of the trend in life expectancy in the Netherlands

Research article

Smoking prevalence, reduction, and cessation during pregnancy and associated factors: a cross-sectional study in public maternities, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Research article

Association between parental socioeconomic status with underweight and obesity in children from two Spanish birth cohorts: a changing relationship

Study protocol

Assessing the effectiveness of High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) for smoking cessation in women: HIIT to quit study protocol

Research article

Health promotion in primary and secondary schools in Denmark: time trends and associations with schools’ and students’ characteristics

Research article

Decadal transition of adult mortality pattern at Ballabgarh HDSS: evidence from verbal autopsy data