Risk Characterization for Nanotechnology

Williams, Richard A.; Kulinowski, Kristen M.; White, Ronald H.; Louis, Garrick

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01513.x

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Policy makers and regulators are constantly required to make decisions despite the existence of substantial uncertainty regarding the outcomes of their proposed decisions. Over the past two decades the engagement of the public has been increasingly encouraged as a way to improve these decision outcomes in areas of environmental risk such as air pollution [ 1 ], genetically modified organisms [ 2 ], climate change [ 3 ] and nanotechnology [ 4 - 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPolicy 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsPolicy 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1795-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Uncertainty is arguably due to both the complexity of nanomaterials as such and to their future implications and consequences (Subramanian et al 2014). Consequently, many uncertain parameters must be communicated in policy and regulatory work on nanotechnology (Williams et al 2010). It is argued that communicating with the public about uncertain hopes and fears is much more difficult than is communicating established and known facts (Shatkin et al 2010).…”

Section: Nanotechnology Itself Is a Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the problem? A literature review on challenges facing the communication of nanotechnology to the public

Boholm

Larsson

2019

J Nanopart Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical and societal issues concerning justice, safety, risks, and benefits are well-established topics in the discourses of nanotechnology innovation and development. That nanotechnology innovation should be socially and ethically responsible is generally accepted by scientists, policymakers, regulators, and industry, and the idea of public involvement and communication is part and parcel of the conceptualization of responsible technology development. This paper systematically reviews the social science research literature accumulated between 2002 and 2018 on the communication of nanotechnology. A critical and constructivist perspective on policy problems guides the analysis. Two questions are asked of this literature: what problems are identified regarding the communication of nanotechnology to the public? How can these problems be managed and/or resolved? Three different problem themes are identified: the public, societal institutions, and nanotechnology itself. While for some identified problems, there are corresponding solutions; in other instances, there is little alignment between problems and solutions. In conclusion, the paper recommends that in communicating nanotechnology to the public: (i) the objectives of communication should be defined; (ii) previous research should be used responsibly; (iii) communication strategies should be adapted to the context; and (iv) effort should not be spent trying to develop a generic framework for communication.

show abstract

“…Nanotechnology refers to a broad range of possible "technologies," making it difficult to objectively assess risk even in the absence of political and ethical considerations. A recent estimate suggests that there are on the order of 100,000 possible structures for single-walled carbon nanotubes alone, which typically would be considered a single entity in the language of risk assessment (Shatkin & North, 2010;Williams, Kulinowski, White, & Louis, 2010). At the nanoscale, small changes in structure or size can cause a particle to exhibit completely different characteristics, perhaps requiring a completely separate risk assessment.…”

Section: Risk Assessment Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Nanotechnology Risks in Vulnerable Populations: A Case for Gender Diversity

Savath

Brainard

2013

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), this study asks qualitatively analyzes interviews with 48 nanoscientist users at four NNIN facilities. The main research questions were: (1) Do nanotechnologies pose unique social and ethical concerns?; (2) how are the risks associated with nanotechnology distributed among different human populations?; (3) what are specific policy steps that can be used to manage such risks? This study purposefully oversampled female scientists to correct for the historical underrepresentation of women in the nanotechnology workforce. By amplifying the voice of this science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce minority, the policy discussion contained herein better reflects the concerns of the general population. The results, analyzed with the aid of qualitative data analysis software, yield interesting differences in risk characterization among the scientists and innovative policy suggestions for the nanoscience community and regulators alike.

show abstract

Risk Characterization for Nanotechnology

Cited by 16 publications

References 7 publications

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

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

What is the problem? A literature review on challenges facing the communication of nanotechnology to the public

Managing Nanotechnology Risks in Vulnerable Populations: A Case for Gender Diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About