ABSTRACT
Since the first opinion survey was published on awareness and perception of nanotechnology among the general public [4], two key characteristics of nanotechnology perception have been remaining fairly constant: not many people are familiar with nanotechnology [11,15,34,54,76], and feelings about nanotechnology are predominantly positive [22,34,76]. There are national variations in the way nanotechnology is seen by the public: in Japan, 88% (n = 1011) are hopeful regarding the benefits [20]. In Europe, the population seems to be more critical towards nanotechnology than in the USA [21], reflecting the fact that Americans are generally more optimistic about technology than Europeans [21]. At the
core of many studies is the question of which factors have the greatest influence on the perception of nanotechnology. The actual application of nanotechnology was shown to be one of the most important factors [13,66,68,76]. Risk-benefit considerations varied widely for different applications [76]. It was shown that perceived benefit was the most important predictor for willingness to buy [67]. Acceptance for nanotechnology decreased the closer the application was to the body [76]. This factor even outweighed the general attitude, i.e. whether people had a positive or negative general feeling about nanotechnology. Whereas 69% of the people who had a negative feeling towards nanotechnology would still buy nano-products for surface treatment, only 46% of respondents with a very positive feeling would buy nano-food (representative survey in Germany, n = 1000). This underlines the need to investigate the perception and acceptance of specific applications and products rather than using nanotechnology as an abstract term in these kinds of surveys. Alongside risk-benefit considerations, freedom of choice is one of the most important factors influencing risk perception [68]. If individuals are able to actively choose or avoid a product that might turn out to pose a risk, they feel in control of the situation. Accordingly, most of the respondents polled in a qualitative consumer study favoured labelling of nano-products [75]. Apart from these common principles, individual reactions to the same information can differ greatly depending on cultural background. Social scientists aim to identify the main factors that influence individual risk perception. One important factor is trust [11,34,46,47]. The more people trust in the fairness of decision-makers, the greater is their acceptance of nanotechnology. Knowledge about nanotechnology is a factor that has been identified as crucial in several studies. Most of the results suggest that people that are or feel better informed about nanotechnology have more positive feelings towards it [32,75]. This holds true not only for individuals but also for entire nations [31]. Possible interpretations are that “early adopters” who see technological progress as a good thing actively obtain information about nanotechnology [31], but also that exposure to information makes people see the benefits of nanotechnology more than the risks. In this connection, it is worth noting that media reports on nanotechnology focus on the benefits of nanotechnology much
more frequently than on the potential risks [78], see also section 12.4]. However, it would be unwise to therefore conclude that acceptance of nanotechnology can be enhanced or guaranteed merely by providing more information. What is rather the case is that providing people with balanced information about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology can polarise their views according to their personal values [34]. In the USA, in particular, values and beliefs have been shown to play a major role in the perception of nanotechnology [8,30,34]. Given the fact that many people still know little about this technology, it must be borne in mind that additional information is processed in a very individual way determined by the cultural background of the person in question. 12.2.2 Risk Perception of Nanotechnology among
ExpertsIn the controversies surrounding other technologies such as GM food or nuclear energy, experts have often assessed the associated risks as less severe than the general public [31,61]. Experts frequently saw the concerns of laypeople as an uninformed and irrational reaction and attributed these concerns to a lack of knowledge and scientific literacy [31,68]. And indeed, the heuristics employed by laypeople who lack knowledge but want to form an opinion about a potential risk are often prone to distortion. Media reports can be unbalanced and negative incidents are usually overrated. But this is only one side of the story. The other side is that the layperson’s conceptualisation of risk is much more comprehensive than that of the experts [68]. Whereas experts often assess a risk based on individual technical parameters such as the number of fatalities within a certain period of time, the layperson’s risk perception is determined by factors like potential benefit, threat to future generations, social aspects or disaster potential [61,66,68]. How do perceptions of nanotechnology differ between experts and laypeople? A number of studies have investigated risk perceptions of experts on the issue of nanotechnology. Some studies allow direct comparison between experts and laypeople as they asked both groups the same questions [63,64]. The results are ambiguous: in a convenience sample interviewed in Switzerland (375 laypeople and 46 experts), laypeople gave higher risk ratings than experts for all mentioned applications [66]. This result mirrors previous findings
for GM food or nuclear energy. While a US survey (1015 laypeople and 363 experts) also found greater optimism among experts in general, it also showed that experts were significantly more concerned about the adverse environmental and health effects of nanotechnology than laypeople [63]. In this particular study, laypeople were more concerned about social consequences like the invasion of privacy or the loss of jobs. As an example, the following two studies provide a detailed description of expert views on different nanotechnology applications. A Delphi study initiated by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, BfR) [77] was designed to create a framework for risk assessment requirements in connection with future nanotechnology applications but also provides insights into the risk perceptions of experts. The Delphi method is based on structured group surveys and draws on both the participants’ knowledge and intuitive information. In the BfR Delphi survey, around 70 experts from research, industry, public authorities and nongovernmental organisations were systematically interviewed in two survey rounds about the potential risks of nanotechnology for consumers. The feedback from the first round gave the experts an opportunity to compare their personal impressions with the range of opinions held by the participants. The experts identified nanomaterials that are already being or could potentially be used and assigned them to concrete applications. Based on the available knowledge on exposure and hazards, the applications were then classified according to the level of probable risk and strategies for risk reduction were developed. Most experts were convinced of the benefits of certain applications like nanoscale titanium dioxide for skin protection. Experts see the largest growth potential for nano-products in the area of surface coatings. Only moderate health risks were seen for most applications. Twenty-two out of 30 nano-products covered in the survey are safe in the opinion of experts. Minor harmful effects were expected for 7 products. Only in the case of fullerenes in cosmetics were more serious harmful effects on human health predicted. Experts were also concerned about inhalation exposure to nanoparticles and recommended avoiding inhalation of nanomaterials in general. According to the experts, the most important criteria for extended risk assessment of nanomaterials are their bioavailability, their persistence and a generally inadequate knowledge base on these
materials. When asked about possible regulation of nanomaterials, 50% of the experts saw a need for additional legal regulations. A majority said it was necessary to label cosmetics and food that contain nanoparticles. A survey of 363 leading US nanotechnology experts [6] came to similar conclusions. Benefit ratings were higher than risk ratings for all surveyed applications. US experts were most concerned about risks to human health and possible nano-weapons. They also saw a need for wider-ranging legal regulations, especially in areas they saw as entailing the highest risk. The authors conclude that, alongside their optimism regarding the benefits of nanotechnology, experts also have significant concerns about possible risks. In general, experts surprisingly seem to be more concerned about potential nanotechnology risks than the general public. But there is also evidence that public opinion, although quite stable in recent years, is heavily influenced by factors like the trustworthiness of groups and institutions and the kind of information provided. There is still potential for change and polarisation as a possible consequence of unfavourable information or poor risk management in the case of an incident involving nanotechnology. Considerable effort must therefore be devoted to risk assessment, risk management and risk communication, despite or even because of the relative calmness and optimism of the public. 12.3 The Role of the Media in the Perception of
Nanotechnology RisksAlongside the aforementioned factors such as disaster potential or confidence in official regulatory bodies that primarily relate to individual risk perception, there are further mechanisms that promote an increased public focus on certain technologies or that determine how certain technologies are perceived by the public at large [40].
