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.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom

Nature Nanotechnology volume 4, pages 95–98 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Emerging nanotechnologies pose a new set of challenges for researchers, governments, industries and citizen organizations that aim to develop effective modes of deliberation and risk communication early in the research and development process. These challenges derive from a number of issues including the wide range of materials and devices covered by the term ‘nanotechnology’, the many different industrial sectors involved, the fact that many areas of nanotechnology are still at a relatively early stage of development, and uncertainty about the environmental, health and safety impacts of nanomaterials1. Public surveys2,3,4,5,6,7,8 have found that people in the United States and Europe currently view the benefits of nanotechnologies as outweighing their risks although, overall, knowledge about nanotechnology remains very low. However, surveys cannot easily uncover the ways that people will interpret and understand the complexities of nanotechnologies (or any other topic about which they know very little) when asked to deliberate about it in more depth, so new approaches to engaging the public are needed. Here, we report the results of the first comparative United States–United Kingdom public engagement experiment. Based upon four concurrent half-day workshops debating energy and health nanotechnologies we find commonalities that were unexpected given the different risk regulatory histories in the two countries. Participants focused on benefits rather than risks and, in general, had a high regard for science and technology. Application context was much more salient than nation as a source of difference, with energy applications viewed in a substantially more positive light than applications in health and human enhancement in both countries. More subtle differences were present in views about the equitable distribution of benefits, corporate and governmental trustworthiness, the risks to realizing benefits, and in consumerist attitudes.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A little knowledge. Nature Nanotech. 2, 731 (2007).

  2. Sims-Bainbridge, W. Public attitudes towards nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 4, 561–570 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties (Royal Society, 2004).

  4. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understand. Sci. 14, 81–90 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee, C.-J., Scheufele, D. A. & Lewenstein, B. V. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Sci. Commun. 27, 240–267 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hart, P. D. Research Associates, Inc. Report Findings: Based on a National Survey of Adults. Available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/files/HartReport.pdf (Washington, 19 September 2006).

  7. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J. & Turner, S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotech. 1, 153–155 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S. & Weick, A. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal. 27, 59–69 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. See Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, 2004).

  10. Pidgeon, N. F. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or “upstream engagement”? Health Risk Soc. 9, 191–210 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kearnes, M., Macnaughten, P. & Wilsdon, J. Governing at the Nanoscale: People, Policies and Emerging Technologies (Demos, 2006).

  12. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK). Report on Public Dialogue on Nanotechnology for Healthcare. Available at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Nano/RC /ReportPublicDialogueNanotechHealthcare.htm (July, 2008).

  13. Kleinman, D. & Powell, M. Report of the Madison Area Citizen Consensus Conference on Nanotechnology. Available at http://www.nanocafes.org/files/consensus_conference_report.pdf (2005).

  14. Toumey, C. Rules of engagement. Nature Nanotech. 2, 386–387 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Laurent, B. Diverging convergences: Competing meaning of nanotechnology and converging technologies in a local context. Innovation: European J. Soc. Sci. Res. 20, 343–357 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Burri, R. V. & Bellucci, S. Public perception of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 10, 387–391 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pidgeon, N. F., Hood, C., Jones, D. K., Turner, B. A. & Gibson, R. Risk perception, in Risk-Analysis, Perception and Management: Report of a Royal Society Study Group Ch. 5 (The Royal Society, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Slovic, P. The Perception of Risk (Earthscan, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Scheufele, D. A. et al. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotech. 2, 732–734 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Affect, values and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental investigation. GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 261. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=968652 (7 March 2007).

  21. Mori-OST. Science in Society: Findings from Qualitative and Quantitative Research (Office of Science and Technology, 2005).

  22. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators: Chapter 7, Public Attitudes and Understanding (National Science Foundation, 2006).

  23. Rozin, P. Technological stigma: some perspectives from the study of contagion, in Risk, Media and Stigma (eds Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Kunreuther, H.) (Earthscan, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  24. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Science and Society 3rd Report, HL Paper 38 (HMSO, 2000).

  25. Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. E. & Slovic, P. The Social Amplification of Risk (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

  26. Freudenburg, W. R. Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces 71, 909–932 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Einseidel, E. & Goldenburg, L. Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 24, 128–133 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wynne, B. Risk and social learning: reification to engagement, in Social Theories of Risk (eds Krimsky, S. & Golding, D.) (Praeger, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cvetkovich, G. T. & Löfstedt, R. E. (eds) Social Trust and the Management of Risk (Earthscan, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Macoubrie, J. Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understand. Sci. 15, 221–241 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on work supported primarily by the United States National Science Foundation (SES 0531184) at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at University of California at Santa Barbara (CNS-UCSB). Additional support to Cardiff University was provided by the Leverhulme Trust (F/00 407/AG). The authors thank T. Satterfield of University of British Columbia for her many thoughtful suggestions and contributions to this study. J. Summers provided science expertise and group facilitation in the United States. T. Roberts assisted with facilitation in the United Kingdom.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK

    Nick Pidgeon

  2. NSF Centre for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California, Santa Barbara, 93106, California, USA

    Barbara Herr Harthorn

  3. Department of Sociology and Women's Studies Program, State University of New York at New Paltz, 600 Hawk Drive, New Paltz, 12561, New York, USA

    Karl Bryant

  4. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

    Tee Rogers-Hayden

Authors
  1. Nick Pidgeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Herr Harthorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karl Bryant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tee Rogers-Hayden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the design and piloting of the workshop procedure. N.P. and T.R.H. collected the UK data, and B.H.H. and K.B. collected the US data. All authors contributed to data analysis. Manuscript preparation was primarily the work of N.P., B.H.H. and K.B.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Pidgeon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B., Bryant, K. et al. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotech 4, 95–98 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.362

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.362

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

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