Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?

Nature Nanotechnology volume 1, pages 153–155 (2006)Cite this article

How do the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, as viewed by the public, compare with those associated with other technologies such as genetically modified organisms, stem cells, biotechnology and nuclear power? And when deciding to use a specific nanotechnology product, will consumers consider the risks, the benefits, or both? We report the first large-scale empirical analyses of these questions.

Recent reports indicate that over 300 nanotechnology-based products have entered the marketplace1, and that these products were worth over $32 billion in 20052. As the public comes into more regular contact with applications of nanotechnology, will its appetite for the benefits of nanotechnology lead to increased support for research? Or will a fixation about the risks of nanotechnology — which could be real or imagined, health- or environment-related — slow progress in the field?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Perceived risks and benefits of nanotechnology and 43 other technologies, based on 503 responses to a national telephone survey.
Figure 2: Likelihood of people using a nanotechnology product for four combinations of risk and benefit, based on the combined averages from 4,542 responses to a national web survey and 501 responses to a national telephone survey.

References

  1. A Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory <www.nanotechproject.org/44/consumer-nanotechnology> (2006).

  2. Lux Research <www.luxresearchinc.com/compass.html>.

  3. Maynard, A. Nanotechnology: A Research Strategy for Addressing Risk <www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/77> (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Maynard, A. et al. Nature 444, 267–269 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wyden, R. Daily Envir. Rep. 33, A-9 (17 February 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nielsen, K. M. Nature Biotechnol. 21, 227–228 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lane, N. Science 312, 1847 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Macoubrie, J. Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government <www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/macoubriereport1.pdf8> (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hart Research Report on Nanotechnology <http://www.nanotechproject.org/78> (2006).

  10. Slovic, P. Science 236, 280–285 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Currall, S. C. & Judge, T. A. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Processes 64, 151–170 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Initiative of the National Science Foundation under NSF Award Number EEC-0118007 and by NSF Award Number SES-0531146, and the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University. We thank the following for assistance and feedback: W. Adams, S. Baggett, A. Barron, D. Beal, V. Colvin, M. Darby, K. Kulinowski, C. Merzbacher, M. Rohrbaugh, J. Tour, J. West, M. Wiesner and L. Zucker. The authors have no affiliation with the Wilson International Center for Scholars nor do the authors have commercial relationships, or conflicts of interest, that affected this research. No corporation influenced the design or execution of our studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

    Steven C. Currall

  2. London Business School, Regent's Park, London, NW1 4SA, UK

    Steven C. Currall

  3. Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive MSN 3F5, Fairfax, 22030, Virginia, USA

    Eden B. King

  4. Department of Physics and Astronomy and Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, 77005, Texas, USA

    Neal Lane

  5. Department of Psychology, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, 77005, Texas, USA

    Juan Madera & Stacey Turner

Authors
  1. Steven C. Currall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eden B. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neal Lane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juan Madera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stacey Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven C. Currall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Currall, S., King, E., Lane, N. et al. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?. Nature Nanotech 1, 153–155 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2006.155

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2006.155

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Find nanotechnology articles, nanomaterial data and patents all in one place. Visit Nano by Nature Research