Public Perception of Nanotechnology

Ortwin Renn

Lecture on the Workshop at the Research Centre Karlsruhe: "Risk Perception and Risk Communication in the Field of Nanotechnology", December 8, 2004

Abstract

1. As any new technology, nanotechnology evokes enthusiasm and high expectations with respect to new progress in science and technology, new productive applications and economic potentials on one hand side, and concerns about risks and unforeseen side effects on the other hand (NSF 2000; Roco et al. 2000; cf. Roco & Tomellini, 2002). As many new technologies experienced a strong public opposition after their often euphoric introduction (nuclear technology, bioengineering, genetic modifications), it is important to understand in advance potential public reactions and potential mobilization effects by relevant social groups.
2. For improving our understanding one needs to investigate the evolving socio-cultural context in which research at the nanoscale is funded, the societal needs that nanotechnology may satisfy, and the popular images that experts, politicians, and representatives of the various publics associate with nanoscience and nanotechnologies. The past research on public attitudes and political mobilization has demonstrated that the effectiveness of public protest does not depend so much on the number of people concerned about a technology but rather on the composition of the groups that are willing to act publicly in favor or against the implementation of such technologies (Hampel et al. 2000).
3. Public perception of technological risks depends on two sets of variables: the first set includes the well-known psychological factors such as perceived threat, familiarity, personal control options, and positive risk-benefit ratio. The second set includes political and cultural factors such as perceived equity and justice, visions about future developments and effects on one's interests and values. While the first set of components can be predicted to some degree on the basis of the properties of the technology itself and the situation of its introduction, the second set is almost impossible to predict. The social, political and cultural embedding of a new technology is always contingent on situational, randomly assorted combination of circumstances that impedes any systematic approach for anticipation.
4. The psychological associations linked to nanotechnologies can be and are studied empirically (cf. Bainbridge 2003). The main problem here is that for more than 90 percent of the respondents in European as well as U.S. surveys the term nanotechnology has no meaning and evokes educated guesses at best (Rocco and Bainbride 2001). Even if the term is explained to the interview partners, the response is a direct reaction to the verbal stimulus and thus more an artefact of the questionnaire than a valid representation of a person's attitude. A more promising method would be to conduct focus groups in which proponents and opponents of nanotechnology would be given the opportunity to develop their arguments in front of representatives of the general public or selected groups and then ask the respondents to share their impressions and evaluations.
5. Looking at the empirical results so far, it is interesting to note that the concern about the science-fiction notion of self-reproducing nano-robots or other more exotic applications of nanotechnology that could harm humans directly has been rarely found in the few surveys conducted until today (the theses of Joy, 2000, and others have no found much resonance in the public). Rather, critical remarks center around the concern that nanotechnology would be misused by some people to harm other people, exacerbating existing social inequalities and conflicts. In contrast, most respondents associated quite a number of direct but non-specific benefits and found a number of ways to express confidence that nanotechnology would help human beings achieve legitimate goals (Bainbridge 2003).
6. The social and cultural aspects of perception can be investigated by a combination of theoretical concepts (for example reflexive modernization approach) and empirical illustrations (we are far from empirical validation). On the basis of sociological theory one can deduct potential interest violations, mobilization potentials and societal opportunities or constraints for political action. For this purpose, it is important to analyze the motives, interests and resources of social player and simulate their influence on the policy process. Such a study will not be able to predict the exact development of the controversy over time, but may help decision makers to prepare themselves for what they could expect in the future. It is more a contingency analysis than a prediction.
7. An alternative route to understanding the more complex social and cultural responses is to organize public participation forums that simulate a microcosm of what one could expect in society as a whole (Renn 1999). Such forums are worthless if the outcome has no political impact. Only if these forums are constructed to enlighten policy makers or even co-determine public policies, can they fulfill their mandate to provide a public platform that simulates and precedes a similar debate in the wider society. Such forums will and should not replace the wider debate in society but it may pre-structure this debate and provide policy makers with suggestions and policy recommendations that they can successfully use in the wider debate that follows.

References

Bainbridge W. S., 2003:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 1, 13-24

Hampel, J.; Klinke, A. and Renn, O., 2000:
Beyond "Red" Hope and "Green" Distrust. Public Perception of Genetic Engineering in Germany. Politeia, Vol. 16, No. 60, 68-82

Joy, B., 2000:
"Why the Future Doesn't Need Us", Wired, April 2000.

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology), 2000:
National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan. White House, Washington, DC.

Renn, O. 1999:
Participative Technology Assessment: Meeting the Challenges of Uncertainty and Ambivalence. Futures Research Quarterly, Volume 15, No. 3, 81-97 Roco, M. C. & R. Tomellini, 2002:
Nanotechnology: Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Roco, Mihail C., R. S. Williams, and P. Alivisatos, (eds), 2000:
Nanotechnology Research Directions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Roco, Mihail C., and Bainbridge, W. S. (eds), 2001:
Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Contact

Prof. Dr. Ortwin Renn
Universität Stuttgart
Institut für Sozialwissenschaften
Abteilung für Technik- und Umweltsoziologie
Seidenstr. 36
70174 Stuttgart
Tel.: +49 (0) 711 - 121 3970 oder +49 (0) 711 - 121 4295
Fax: +49 (0) 711 - 121 2487
E-Mail:

Created: 28.10.2004 - Comments to: webmaster@itas.fzk.de

Bitte beachten Sie, dass diese Internetseite nicht weiter gepflegt wird. Für aktuelle Inhalte besuchen Sie bitte www.itas.kit.edu.