24 September 2009

Nanotechnology favored, but safety questions linger

The perception of nanotechnology is very favorable, but questions still remain about the risks involved.

A new study that provides an overview of research on public perceptions of nanotechnology challenges some current ideas of how people view the risks and benefits of new technology.

Nanotechnology could revolutionize medicine, electronics, and energy technology, but there are possible health and environmental risks. Public views, right now, are overwhelmingly favorable, the study found. However, many people had not heard of nanotechnology, and nearly half those surveyed in North America, Europe, and Japan were not sure what they thought of it. It appears those people have not made hasty judgments, researchers said, but that means failed attempts to educate the public about nanotechnology, or to regulate it, could turn public opinion against this technology.

“If you only talk about benefits, it doesn’t mean the public will buy the product and everyone lives happily ever after. We know that is not a good scenario,” said Barbara Herr Harthorn, director and principal investigator of the National Science Foundation-funding Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California, Santa Barbara (CNS-UCSB). Harthorn is one of the authors of a study, “Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.”

Previous studies found new and unknown technologies, such as biotechnology, have a perception of being risky, but that is not the case for nanotechnology, according to this research. People who thought nanotechnology had more benefits than risks outnumbered those who perceived greater risks by 3 to 1 in this study. The 44% of people who did not have an opinion either way surprised the researchers.

“You don’t normally get that reluctance,” said Terre Satterfield of the University of British Columbia in Canada, lead author of the study and a collaborator with CNS-UCSB.

It is important to study how people perceive risk, and not just expert assessments of actual risk, because it is “a much better way to understand how people are going to behave and respond,” Herr Harthorn said.

“It’s not true that if a technology has benefits it will automatically get accepted by the public,” said Milind Kandlikar of the University of British Columbia. He is also a collaborator with CNS-UCSB and a co-author of the study, along with Joseph Conti, a former graduate fellow with CNS-UCSB, and Christian Beaudrie of the University of British Columbia.

Public perceptions of risk depend on various demographic and cultural factors. Public opinion is easily swayed by catastrophic events like the Chernobyl accident, which galvanized opposition to nuclear power, and by news like reports of deaths from Bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Europe, or from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or swine flu (the H1N1 virus).

“It’s much easier to destroy trust than gain it,” Satterfield said, so after an event like a nuclear meltdown or oil spill, leaders need to “take responsibility for any consequences quickly and clearly.”

For related information, go to www.isa.org/productivity.