A comparison between two recent national surveys among nanoscientists and the general public in the US shows that, in general, nanoscientists are more optimistic than the public about the potential benefits of nanotechnology. However, for some issues related to the environmental and long-term health impacts of nanotechnology, nanoscientists were significantly more concerned than the public.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Open Access 15 March 2019
Engaging scientists: An online survey exploring the experience of innovative biotechnological approaches to controlling vector-borne diseases
Parasites & Vectors Open Access 10 August 2015
Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes
BMC Public Health Open Access 26 April 2015
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Savadori, L. et al. Risk Analysis 24, 1289–1299 (2004).
Kepplinger, H. M., Ehmig, S. C. & Ahlheim, C. Gentechnik im Widerstreit [The Controversies Surrounding Genetic Engineering] (Campus, Frankfurt, 1991).
Sjöberg, L. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 1–9 (Winter 1999).
Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A & Kastenholz, H. Nature Nanotech. 2, 67 (2007).
Maynard, A. D. et al. Nature 444, 267–269 (2006).
RS policy document 35/06 (The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2006); http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=22538
Weiss, R. The Washington Post A01 (23 November 2006).
Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2007); available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/138/9252007-poll-reveals-public-awareness-ofnanotech-stuck-at-low-level.
Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. J. Nanopart. Res. 7, 659–667 (2005).
Scheufele, D. A. Nano Today 2, 48 (October 2007).
Friedman, S. M. & Egolf, B. P IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 24, 5–11 (Winter 2005).
Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T, Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. Nature Mater. 3, 496 (2004).
Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N. F. Maldera, J. & Turner, S. Nature Nanotech. 1, 153–155 (2006).
Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Cutcome Rates for Surveys (American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lenexa, Kansas, 2006).
Dillman, D. A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2nd edn (Wiley, New York, 2007).
Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P. & Schoeneck, D. J. J. Nanopart. Res. (in the press).
This material is based on work supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (SES-0531194) and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Graduate School (135GL82). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the UW-Madison Graduate School. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.A.S.
About this article
Cite this article
Scheufele, D., Corley, E., Dunwoody, S. et al. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotech 2, 732–734 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.392
This article is cited by
Development and Pilot Testing of an Evidence-Based Training Module for Integrating Social and Ethical Implications into the Lab
Journal of Nanoparticle Research (2019)
Nature Sustainability (2018)
The effect of activity-based nanoscience and nanotechnology education on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding
Journal of Nanoparticle Research (2018)