Skip to main content
Log in

Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust

  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We report data from the first representative national phone survey of Americans' perceptions about nanotechnology (N =1536). Public opinion about nanotechnology is in its infancy, and knowledge about it is quite limited. Yet, Americans' initial reaction to nanotechnology is thus far generally positive, probably rooted in a generally positive view of science overall. Survey respondents expected benefits of nanotechnology to be more prevalent than risks, and they reported feeling hopeful about nanotechnology rather than worried. Their most preferred potential benefit of nanotechnology is “new and better ways to detect and treat human diseases,” and they identified “losing personal privacy to tiny new surveillance devices” as the most important potential risk to avoid. The most discouraging aspect to the data is respondents' lack of trust in business leaders to minimize nanotechnology risks to human health. Overall, these data indicate that while Americans do not necessarily presume benefits and the absence of risks, their outlook is much more positive than not.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bainbridge W.S., 2002. Public attitudes towards nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 4, 561–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colvin V., 2004. (March10), Responsible nanotechnology: Looking beyond the good news. EurekaAlert!, Essay 1102 (http://www.eurekalert.org).

  • Couper M.P., 2000. Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Publ.Opin.Q. 64, 464–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crichton M., 2002. Prey. Harper Collins, New York.

  • Delli Carpini M.X. & S. Keeter, 1989. What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber D., 1999. Risks and benefits: GM crops in the cross hairs. Science 286, 1662–1666.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G., M.W. Bauer, J. Durant & N.C. Allum, 1999. Worlds apart?: The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the USA. Science 285, 1664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan M.F. & L.E. Miller, 1987. Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 306–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leggett M. & M. Finlay, 2001. Science, story, and image: A new approach to crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon. Publ. Understanding Sci. 10, 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus G., 2002. The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion on in Democratic Politics. Penn State University Press, University, Park, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus G. M. MacKuen & R. Neuman, 2000. Affective Intelligence. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers R.A., 1989. Persuasive arguments theory: A test of assumptions. Human Commun. Res. 15, 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences, 2000. Genetically modified pestprotected plants: Science and regulation. Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants, National. Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page B.I. & R.Y. Shapiro, 1992. The Rational Public. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest S.H., 1995. Information equity, public understanding of sciences, and the biotechnology debate. J. Commun. 45, 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins R., 2001. Overburdening risk: Policy frameworks and the public uptake of gene technology. Publ. Understanding Sci. 10, 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco M.C., 2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 5, 181–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco M.C., & W.S. Bainbridge, eds., 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler R., S. Duggan & R. Gott, 2001. Public participation in an environmental dispute: Implications for science education. Publ. Understanding Sci. 10, 343–364.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

cobb, M.D., Macoubrie, J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6, 395–405 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4

Navigation