Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Scientists worry about some risks more than the public

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

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

Figure 1: Perceived risks and benefits of nanotechnology.


  1. Savadori, L. et al. Risk Analysis 24, 1289–1299 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kepplinger, H. M., Ehmig, S. C. & Ahlheim, C. Gentechnik im Widerstreit [The Controversies Surrounding Genetic Engineering] (Campus, Frankfurt, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sjöberg, L. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6, 1–9 (Winter 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A & Kastenholz, H. Nature Nanotech. 2, 67 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. RS policy document 35/06 (The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2006);

  7. Weiss, R. The Washington Post A01 (23 November 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2007); available at

  9. Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. J. Nanopart. Res. 7, 659–667 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scheufele, D. A. Nano Today 2, 48 (October 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Friedman, S. M. & Egolf, B. P IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 24, 5–11 (Winter 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T, Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. Nature Mater. 3, 496 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N. F. Maldera, J. & Turner, S. Nature Nanotech. 1, 153–155 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Cutcome Rates for Surveys (American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lenexa, Kansas, 2006).

  15. Dillman, D. A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2nd edn (Wiley, New York, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P. & Schoeneck, D. J. J. Nanopart. Res. (in the press).

Download references


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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dietram A. Scheufele.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

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).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing