Factors influencing societal response of nanotechn

Authors: Nidhi Gupta Arnout R H Fischer Ivo A van der Lans Lynn J Frewer

Publish Date: 2012/05/01

Volume: 14, Issue: 5, Pages: 857-

PDF Link

Abstract

Nanotechnology can be described as an emerging technology and as has been the case with other emerging technologies such as genetic modification different sociopsychological 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 examine the psychological constructs underlying societal uptake of 15 key applications of nanotechnology drawn from different areas eg medicine agriculture and environment chemical food military sports and cosmetics Based on expert judgement the main factors influencing societal response to different applications of nanotechnology will be the extent to which applications are perceived to be beneficial useful and necessary and how real and physically close to the enduser these applications are perceived to be by the publicEmerging applications of nanotechnology have the potential to deliver new manufacturing processes and products across various different sectors of application ranging from agriculture to medicine to defence applications which will potentially result in profound changes in society as a whole Crow and Sarewitz 2001 To realise the full potential of nanotechnology significant resources have been allocated for nanotechnology research by government institutions public and private research centres universities and industry globally Brossard et al 2009 Roco 2003 Roco and Bainbridge 2005 Salerno et al 2008 However the potential social and economic benefits of nanotechnology may not be realised if the issue of societal acceptance of nanotechnology and the concrete products of its application across a range of application domains is not adequately addressed In the past societal responses to new technologies have played a crucial role in the success eg mobile phones internet or failure eg food irradiation genetically modified foods in Europe of such technologies Frewer et al 2004 2011a Gaskell et al1999 Van Kleef et al 2010 Wright and Androuchko 1996 It is likely that just as has been the case for some other new technologies sociopsychological factors will influence the societal response to nanotechnology Gupta et al 2011 It is recognised that such sociopsychological factors will shape the commercialisation trajectory of technology but also facilitate allocation of resources in areas of application relevant to the wider needs of society Thus the identification of these factors will play an important role in the future development of nanotechnologyFrom the literature there is some evidence that at the present time the general public has limited or no knowledge or awareness about nanotechnology and that public involvement in the debate surrounding nanotechnology development is rare Pidgeon et al 2009 Priest 2006 Ronteltap et al 2011 Satterfield et al 2009 Siegrist et al 2008 Vandermoere et al 2010 Therefore at this stage in the development of nanotechnology people with occupation related experience and expertise in nanotechnology from the scientific community industry policy makers or consumer representatives are likely to inform the development and application of nanotechnologyAn important element in determining how the technology will be implemented depends on the perceptions of these experts regarding societal acceptance of both the technology and its specific products across different domains of application Although expert view on societal response to new technologies may not align with actual societal attitudes Barke and JenkinsSmith 1993 Blok et al 2008 Flynn et al 1993 Kraus et al 1992 Sjöberg 1999 Webster et al 2010 those expert views on societal responses are likely to influence technology implementation and commercialisation Identifying expert priorities and preferences at an early stage of technological development can be used to identify how such views have influence on the commercialisation trajectory in the future A study of these expert groups can provide an opportunity to examine which perceptions currently represent broadly shared consensus among the different stakeholder groups and which are associated with a broader range of individual opinions Besley et al 2008 In addition research on expert views can provide a benchmark to analyse preferences and concerns and may be used as a precursor to initiate dialogues at improving the practicality of regulatory actions Berube et al 2011 The present study can contribute to making future comparisons between public and expert views on societal issues related to nanotechnology as identification of the critical differences between expert and public opinion needs to be taken into account in framing risk communication efforts directed at public Hagemann and Scholderer 2009The aim of this paper is to elicit expert opinion on factors influencing societal response to applications of nanotechnology The specific objective of this study is to compare different applications of nanotechnology and identify expert views regarding factors influencing societal acceptabilityThere have been some studies highlighting expert views on nanotechnology Besley et al 2008 Berube et al 2011 Corley et al 2009 Ho et al 2011 Priest et al 2010 Siegrist et al 2007a Yawson and Kuzma 2010 Yawson and Kuzma 2010 showed that according to experts factors such as trust institutions risk and benefit perception and knowledge are likely to affect consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology products Siegrist et al 2007a used the psychometric paradigm to examine risk perception and the role of trust in developing attitudes toward nanotechnology among laypeople and experts This study suggested that perceived dreadfulness of applications and trust in governmental agencies are important factors in determining risks It also emphasised that for an expert sample in the study confidence in governmental agencies was an important predictor of risks associated with nanotechnology Another study by Priest et al 2010 compared the risk and benefit perception of nanotechnology among US citizens and a group of nanotechnology experts The study showed that public opinion has started to diverge from expert opinion with respect to societal risks of nanotechnology as for citizens there has been a rapid rise in concern over societal risks in comparison to risk associated with health and environment A study on expert opinion on nanotechnology by Besley et al 2008 showed that public health and environmental issues are the areas where both risk and need for regulation are greatest Also while considering risk and regulation experts distinguished between health environment and social risks US nanoscientist’s risk and benefit perception of nanotechnology as well as their support for nanotechnology regulation showed that nanoscientists are more supportive of regulating nanotechnology when they perceive higher levels of risks however perceived benefits about nanotechnology do not significantly impact their support for nanotechnology regulation Corley et al 2009 Compared with the experts the public judged nanotechnology as having greater risks and fewer benefits and indicated less support for governmental funding of nanotechnology research Ho et al 2011Most previous research in this area has used a priori defined constructs developed either from existing theoretical models which did not account for any specific concerns associated with public acceptance of the technology or were decided by the researchers To fully capture the factors that determine expert views on the societal response to nanotechnology it would be advantageous not to make a priori assumptions about what expert consider to be important issues for societal acceptance Frewer et al 1997 Constructs elicited this way are likely to provide a more meaningful reflection of the real attitudes and perceptions of the group of participants being sampled Henson et al 2008 This in turn would help in evolving a more realistic picture of the potential factors driving societal response to nanotechnology and its applications Repertory grid methodology in conjunction with generalized Procrustes analysis GPA offers a methodological solution The repertory grid method RGM allows respondents to describe their response in their own words without imposing external experimenter determined factors while GPA allows the differentiation of constructs about which respondents agree and the most important determinants can be identified Frewer et al 1997

Keywords: