Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom

Abstract

Emerging nanotechnologies pose a new set of challenges for researchers, governments, industries and citizen organizations that aim to develop effective modes of deliberation and risk communication early in the research and development process. These challenges derive from a number of issues including the wide range of materials and devices covered by the term 'nanotechnology', the many different industrial sectors involved, the fact that many areas of nanotechnology are still at a relatively early stage of development, and uncertainty about the environmental, health and safety impacts of nanomaterials. Public surveys have found that people in the United States and Europe currently view the benefits of nanotechnologies as outweighing their risks although, overall, knowledge about nanotechnology remains very low. However, surveys cannot easily uncover the ways that people will interpret and understand the complexities of nanotechnologies (or any other topic about which they know very little) when asked to deliberate about it in more depth, so new approaches to engaging the public are needed. Here, we report the results of the first comparative United States-United Kingdom public engagement experiment. Based upon four concurrent half-day workshops debating energy and health nanotechnologies we find commonalities that were unexpected given the different risk regulatory histories in the two countries. Participants focused on benefits rather than risks and, in general, had a high regard for science and technology. Application context was much more salient than nation as a source of difference, with energy applications viewed in a substantially more positive light than applications in health and human enhancement in both countries. More subtle differences were present in views about the equitable distribution of benefits, corporate and governmental trustworthiness, the risks to realizing benefits, and in consumerist attitudes.

Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies

“…This is a particularly fruitful area of research as it might help us understand, by mimicking in survey design, frames that capture the potential social contexts of emerging risks (for example, comparing frames that emphasize positive social climates and the support or not of respected civic and activist organizations). Given that a very large portion of people (44% noted above) have reserved judgement, it is all the more important to understand how perceptions are modulated by the application domain and risk-specific information as was true in the biotechnology case 59 . Scholars now need to understand how application domains with markedly different benefit-risk profiles are likely to influence perceptions of emerging nanotechnologies.…”

“…Key here is whether risk aversion in one application domain is likely to carry over to all nanotechnologies, or will it be limited to the specific application or the nanomaterial in question? Surprisingly, only a few studies to date have probed this in any detail 56 , including a study of applications in the food industry and a cross-national deliberative study of energy versus health applications in which domain was meaningful 56,59 . In short, the very malleability of risk judgements here and now calls for intentional (and logically defended) framings in survey design and better use of intercepting independent variables and contextual descriptions, as a flawed but best proxy available for anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.…”

Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy

“…A core principle of information provision in both the workshops and survey was to include balanced information, but wherever possible to allow participants to bring their own understandings and framing to the engagement process, in addition to the policy frames provided (Challenge 3). Scholars working with the ideas of upstream public engagement (4, 37) and anticipatory governance (10) have also begun to explore this issue in relation to national-level dialogues for emerging science issues such as nanotechnologies (38,39) and climate engineering (40).…”

Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering

“…When public engagement occurs before significant research and development into a new technology has begun and prior to entrenched attitudes or social representations becoming established, it is typically referred to as 'upstream' (Rogers-Hayden and Pidgeon 2007;Pidgeon et al 2009;Wilsdon and Willis 2004). Relevant 'lay' questions at an upstream phase in a technology's development might include asking what a technology is for, who is likely to own or profit from it, or who will be responsible if things go wrong.…”