publication . Article . Other literature type . 2012

Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis

Ivo A. van der Lans; A.R.H. Fischer;
Open Access English
  • Published: 01 May 2012 Journal: Journal of Nanoparticle Research, volume 14, issue 5 (issn: 1388-0764, eissn: 1572-896X, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: Springer Netherlands
  • Country: Netherlands
Abstract
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 examin...
Subjects
free text keywords: Research Paper, Nanotechnology, Societal response, Expert opinion, Factors, Applications of nanotechnology, Repertory grid method, Generalized Procrustes analysis, Societal implications, repertory grid methodology, genetically-modified foods, consumers perceptions, emerging technologies, risk perceptions, united-kingdom, attitudes, acceptance, benefits, opinion, Materials Science(all), Chemistry(all), Modelling and Simulation, General Materials Science, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Bioengineering, General Chemistry, Condensed Matter Physics
Related Organizations
63 references, page 1 of 5

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 [OpenAIRE]

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 [OpenAIRE]

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 [OpenAIRE]

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 [OpenAIRE]

Crow MM, Sarewitz D (2001) Nanotechnology and societal transformation. American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC

Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz C (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive repository. Risk Anal 13:643-648

Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R (1996) What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal 16(4): 473-485 [OpenAIRE]

Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1997) Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci Technol Hum Values 22(1):98-124

Frewer LJ, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181-1193 [OpenAIRE]

63 references, page 1 of 5
Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue