Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Besley, J (2010)
Publisher: CoAction Publishing
Journal: Emerging Health Threats Journal
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Review Articles
Abstract: This review explores research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. It highlights a recurring emphasis on some researchers’ expectations that there will be a meaningful relationship between awareness of nanotechnology and positive views about nanotechnology. The review, however, also notes that this emphasis is tacitly and explicitly rejected by a range of multivariate studies that emphasize the key roles played by nonawareness variables such as, trust, general views about science, and overall world view. The review concludes with a discussion of likely future research directions, including the expectation that social scientists will continue to focus on nanotechnology as a unique opportunity to study how individuals assess risk in the context of relatively low levels of knowledge. Keywords: Nanotechnology, public opinion, scientific opinion, risk perceptions (Accepted: 25 September 2010) Citation: Emerging Health Threats Journal 2010, 3:e8. doi: 10.3134/ehtj.10.164
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1 Einsiedel EF, Goldenberg L. Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics, and Law. Earthscan: London, UK, 2006. pp 213-21.
    • 2 National Research Council. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. In: Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds). National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996.
    • 3 Joss S, Belluci S (eds). Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives. Gateshead. Athenaeum Press/Centre for the Study of Democracy: UK, 2002.
    • 4 Einsiedel EF, Jelsoe E, Breck T. Publics at the technology table: the consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Underst Sci 2001;10:83-98.
    • 5 Schutz H, Wiedemann PM. Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 2008;17:369-79.
    • 6 Macoubrie J. Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 2006;15:221-41.
    • 7 Bainbridge WS. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 2002;4:561-70.
    • 8 Besley JC, Kramer VL, Yao Q, Toumey CP. Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement on emerging technology. Sci Commun 2008;30:209-35.
    • 9 Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nano 2009;4:95-8.
    • 10 Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V. Risk perceptions starting to shift? US citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 2010;12:11-20.
    • 11 National Nanotechnology Initiative. Nanotech Facts. National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2010 (updated 2010; cited 4 May 2010). Available from: http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/ home_facts.html.
    • 12 Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Consumer Products: An Inventory of Nanotechnology-based Products Currently on the Market. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Washington, DC, 2010 (updated 2010; cited 2 May 2010). Available from: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/.
    • 13 Berube DM, Searson EM, Morton TS, Cummings CL. Project on emerging nanotechnologies: consumer product inventory evaluated. Nano Law Bus 2010;7:152-63.
    • 14 National Nanotechnology Initiative. History. National Science Foundation: Washington, DC, 2010 (updated 2010; cited 2 May 2010). Available from: http://www.nano.gov/html/about/history.html.
    • 15 European Commission. Nanotechnology 2009 (updated 2009; cited 3 May 2010). Available from: http://cordis.europa.eu/ nanotechnology/.
    • 16 Hebert P. Top Nations in Nanotech See Their Lead Erode. Lux Research Inc.: New York, NY, 2007 (updated 2007; cited 25 April 2010).
    • 17 Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 2009;18: 546-58.
    • 18 Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 2005;27:240-67.
    • 19 Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E, Guston DH. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2007;2:732-4.
    • 20 Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. The public and nanotechology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 2005;7:659-67.
    • 21 Ho S, Scheufele DA, Corley EA. Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 2010;12:2703-15.
    • 22 Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA. From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 2009 (online first).
    • 23 Stephens LF. News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Sci Commun 2005;27:175-99.
    • 24 Besley JC, Kramer V, Priest SH. Expert opinion on nanotechno logy: risk, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 2008;10:549-58.
    • 25 McComas KA, Besley JC, Yang Z. Risky business: the perceived justice of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Anal 2008;28:1539-52.
    • 26 Waldron A, Spencer D, Batt C. The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 2006;8:569-75.
    • 27 Cobb MD. Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 2005;27:221-39.
    • 28 Cobb MD, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust. J Nanopart Res 2004;6:395-405.
    • 29 Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 2009;4:87-90.
    • 30 Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 2006;1:153-5.
    • 31 Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G. Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 2005;14:81-90.
    • 32 Howard CV, Ikah DSK. Nanotechnology and nanoparticle toxicity: a case for precaution. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds). Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics, and Law. Earthscan: London, UK, 2006. pp 154-66.
    • 33 Kuzma J, Besley JC. Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: from bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2008;2:149-62.
    • 34 Nisbet MC, Lewenstein BV. Biotechnology and the American media: the policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Sci Commun 2002;23:359-91.
    • 35 Nisbet MC. Knowledge into action: framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In: D'Angelo P, Kuypers JA (eds). Doing News Framing Analysis: E. Routledge: New York, NY, 2010. pp 43-83.
    • 36 Gamson WA. Talking Politics. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 1992.
    • 37 Gorss JB, Lewenstein BV. The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American Press, 1986-2004. Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, 26-30 May, New York, NY, 2005.
    • 38 Friedman SM, Egolf BP. Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 2005; Winter: 5-11.
    • 39 Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C. The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 2005;27:200-20.
    • 40 Wilkinson C, Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A. From uncertainty to risk? Scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health Risk Soc 2007;38:145-57.
    • 41 Weaver DA, Lively E, Bimber B. Searching for a frame: news media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Sci. Commun 2009;31:139-66.
    • 42 Schmidt Kjaergaard R. Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Underst. Sci 2010;19:80-97.
    • 43 Ebeling MFE. Mediating uncertainty: communicating the financial risks of nanotechnologies. Sci Commun 2008;29:335-61.
    • 44 Wilkinson C, Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A. From uncertainty to risk? Scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health Risk Soc 2007;9:145-57.
    • 45 Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CE, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 2009;4:752-8.
    • 46 Peter D. Hart Research Associates. Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology, & Public Opinion. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies: Washington, DC, 2009.
    • 47 Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Shih T-j, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 2009;4:91-4.
    • 48 Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering: London, UK, 2004.
    • 49 Priest S. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 2006;8:563-8.
    • 50 Nanotechnology and Society Survey Project. Perception of Nanotechnology Among General Public in Japan. Nanotechnology Research Institute: Tsukuba, Japan, 2006 (updated 2006; cited). Available from: http://www.nanoworld.jp/apnw/articles/library4/ pdf/4-6.pdf.
    • 51 Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 2010;12:373-81.
    • 52 Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 2009;20:195-206.
    • 53 Smiley Smith SE, Hosgood HD, Michelson ES, Stowe MH. Americans' nanotechnology risk perception. J Indust Eco 2008;12:459-73.
    • 54 Stampfli N, Siegrist M, Kastenholz H. Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis. J Risk Res 2010;13:353-65.
    • 55 Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople0s and experts0 perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 2007;27:59-69.
    • 56 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: Washington, DC, 2009 (updated 9 July 2009; cited). Available from: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/ 528.pdf.
    • 57 Royal Society. Factors Affecting Science Communication. A Survey of Scientists and Engineers. The Royal Society: London, UK, 2006. Available from: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id ΒΌ 3180.
    • 58 Sturgis P, Allum N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 2004;13: 55-74.
    • 59 Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst Sci 2007;16:79-95.
    • 60 Davies SR. Constructing communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Sci Commun 2008;29:413-34.
    • 61 Frewer LJ, Hunt S, Brennan M, Kuznesof S, Ness M, Ritson C. The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. J Risk Res 2003;6:75-85.
    • 62 Peter D. Report Findings: Based on a National Survey of Adults. Project on Emerging Technologies: Washington, DC, 2006.
    • 63 Siegrist M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci Technol 2008;19:603-8.
    • 64 Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. In: Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (eds) Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. Earthscan: London, UK, 2007. pp 1-50.
    • 65 Nisbet MC, Goidel RK. Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Underst Sci 2007;16:421-40.
    • 66 Kahan DM. Nanotechnology and society: the evolution of risk perceptions. Nat Nanotechnol 2009;4:705-6.
    • 67 Cook AJ, Fairweather JR. Intentions of New Zealanders to purchase lamb or beef made using nanotechnology. Br Food J 2007;109:675-88.
    • 68 Conner M, Armitage CJ. Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for further research. J Appl Soc Psychol 1998;28:1429-64.
    • 69 Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 1991;50:179-211.
    • 70 Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield (reprinted from Environment, ethics, and behavior, pp 277-313, 1997). Risk Anal 1999;19:689-701.
    • 71 Corley E, Scheufele DA, Hu Q. Of risks and regulations: How leading US nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 2010;11:1573-85.
    • 72 Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA. The future of public engagement. Scientist 2007; 39-44.
    • 73 Nisbet MC. Communicating climate change why frames matter for public engagement. Environment 2009;51:12-23.
    • 74 Mandel G, Braman D, Kahan DM. Cultural cognition and synthetic biology risk perceptions: a preliminary analysis. SSRN eLibrary, 2008.
    • 75 Kahan DM, Braman D, Mandel G. Risk and culture: Is Synthetic biology different? SSRN eLibrary, 2009.
    • 76 Bauer MW. Distinguishing red and green biotechnology: cultivation effects of the elite press. Int J Public Opin Res 2005;17:63-89.
    • 77 Dillman DA, Smythe JD, Christian LM. Internet, Mail and MixedMode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Wiley and Sons: Hobken, NJ, 2009.
    • 78 AAPOR Executive Council Task Force. AAPOR Report on Online Panels. Deerfield, IL. AAPORT (updated March 2010, cited). Available from: http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Committee_and_ Task_Force_Reports/2556.htm.
    • 79 Peter D. Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies. Project on Emerging Technologies: Washington, DC, 2007.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • NSF | NSEC: Nanotechnology in Soc...
  • NSF | NER: Building Capacity For ...

Cite this article