Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis

Article English OPEN
Gupta, Nidhi ; Fischer, Arnout R. H. ; van der Lans, Ivo A. ; Frewer, Lynn J. (2012)
  • Publisher: Springer Netherlands
  • Journal: Journal of Nanoparticle Research, volume 14, issue 5 (issn: 1388-0764, eissn: 1572-896X)
  • Related identifiers: pmc: PMC3397131, doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x
  • Subject: Expert opinion | Repertory grid method | Generalized Procrustes analysis | Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics | Bioengineering | Factors | Materials Science(all) | Chemistry(all) | Condensed Matter Physics | Societal implications | Nanotechnology | Modelling and Simulation | Applications of nanotechnology | Research Paper | Societal response

Nanotechnology can be described as an emerging technology and, as has been the case with other emerging technologies such as genetic modification, different socio-psychological factors will potentially influence societal responses to its development and application. These factors will play an important role in how nanotechnology is developed and commercialised. This article aims to identify expert opinion on factors influencing societal response to applications of nanotechnology. Structured interviews with experts on nanotechnology from North West Europe were conducted using repertory grid methodology in conjunction with generalized Procrustes analysis to examine the psychological constructs underlying societal uptake of 15 key applications of nanotechnology drawn from different areas (e.g. medicine, agriculture and environment, chemical, food, military, sports, and cosmetics). Based on expert judgement, the main factors influencing societal response to different applications of nanotechnology will be the extent to which applications are perceived to be beneficial, useful, and necessary, and how 'real' and physically close to the end-user these applications are perceived to be by the public. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • References (63)
    63 references, page 1 of 7

    Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith HC (1993) Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Anal 13:425-439

    Bauer MW (2005) Distinguishing red and green biotechnology: cultivation effects of the elite press. Int J Public Opin Res 17(1):63-89

    Berube DM, Cummings CL, Cacciatore M, Scheufele D, Kalin J (2011) Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: expert Delphi survey. Nanotoxicology 5(2):236-243. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2010.521633

    Besley J, Kramer V, Priest (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanoparticle Res 10(4):549-558

    Blok A, Jensen M, Kaltoft P (2008) Social identities and risk: expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use. Public Underst Sci 17:189-209

    Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):546-558

    Burri RV, Bellucci S (2008) Public perception of nanotechnology. J Nanaopart Res 10:387-391

    Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395-405

    Conti J, Satterfield T, Harthorn BH (2011) Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent U.S. nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal 31(11):1734-1748

    Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1573-1585. doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark