The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology

Abstract

According to numerous surveys the perceived risk of nanotechnology is low and most people feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. This article provides greater insight into risk perception and concludes that the positive attitude to nanotechnology is based not on knowledge but on hope and fascination. The perceived risk is low because of a lack of vivid and frightening images of possible hazards. If news flashes were to link nanotechnology to concrete hazards or actual harm to people, attitudes might suddenly change. Risk communication faces the problem of dealing with a public at large that has little or no knowledge about the technology. As it takes time and extensive additional research to develop appropriate communication strategies and disseminate them to the relevant institutions, this exercise should be started immediately.

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

“…(i) Deficits (lack of knowledge, interest, and engagement) Lack of knowledge and engagement among the public is understood as a problem for nanotechnology communication because it might make information difficult for the public to comprehend, in turn making it difficult to interest the public in the information provided. As discussed in the section on background, regarding nanotechnology, the public arguably has poor knowledge, is unfamiliar with the technology, harbors misconceptions, and has difficulties understanding central concepts (Castellini et al 2007: 187;Duncan 2011;Macnaghten 2010: 24;Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden 2007;Schütz and Wiedemann 2008;Simons et al 2009Simons et al : 1596. They also lack engagement and interest (Petersen et al 2007), making it difficult to reach out or involve the public in deliberative approaches.…”

“…(iii) The public relies on values and emotions Values, beliefs, and emotions are understood to influence attitudes toward nanotechnology (Bostrom and Löfstedt 2010;Cormick and Hunter 2014). The role of values and emotions is identified as a problem theme, since it makes it difficult to foresee how information will be understood when attitudes are formed by values, feelings, hopes, and expectations rather than on factual knowledge (Simons et al 2009(Simons et al : 1596. People may not believe in information and might reject information that is not consistent with their values and emotions (Simons et al 2009(Simons et al : 1596.…”

“…(ii) Beyond perception Nanomaterials exist in a size range invisible to the naked eye and are not easily described to laypeople. It is therefore argued that, in the eyes of the public, nanotechnology is distant, unfamiliar, and intangible (Castellini et al 2007: 187;Macnaghten 2010: 23;Pidgeon et al 2011Pidgeon et al : 1695Priest 2012: 22-3;Simons et al 2009). Nanotechnology also arguably has uncanny associations, since it deals with matter that is Bunbelievably small^and therefore Butterly beyond human action, perception and control ( Macnaghten 2010: 24-5).…”

Fora da ordem natural: a natureza nos discursos sobre a clonagem e a pesquisa com celulas-tronco em jornais brasileiros

“…); os antidepressivos e ao modificadores de humor (alterações da natureza humana? ), entre outros ( Van den Belt, 2009;Simons et al, 2009;Guchet, 2009;Luna, 2007;Hansen, 2004Hansen, , 2006Shaw, 2002;Liakopoulos, 2002;Fraser, 2001;Kesselring, 2000;Sutton, 1999;Latour, 1994).…”

Naming is framing: the public understanding of scientific names

“…In all the cases where experts are confronted with unfavourable responses, the technologies, genomics, GM, nanotechnology, and lab meat, are applied to food production. It has been speculated that, because of the intimate connection between people and food, technologies that modify food might be especially prone to scrutiny (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1997;Marris, Wynne, Simmons, & Weldon, 2001;Pardo, Midden, & Miller, 2002;Bánáti, 2011;Simons et al, 2009). The pattern of topics leading to issues appears to confirm this.…”