public perception of risk
Nanotech: good or bad?
Nick Pidgeon, Barbara Harthorn and Terre Satterfield discuss public
attitudes towards nanotechnologies
IN its landmark report published in
20041 the Royal Society and Royal
Academy of Engineering (RS/RAE)
study group highlighted the urgent
need to investigate whether some
nanotechnologies might in the
future pose risks to human health or
to the environment. At the same time
the study group also recommended
research into public attitudes towards
nanotechnologies, as well as a
programme of wider public engagement
around the social and ethical
questions that nanotechnologies might
raise. The term ‘nanotechnology’ of
course encompasses a very broad set
of enabling new technologies at the
very small nanometre scale: ranging
from changes in the strength and
other properties of familiar materials,
advances in small sensing and
diagnostic devices, through to complex
bio-chemical structures for future
medical applications. Although it is
expected that most will not raise novel
ethical or safety issues, those that do
are likely to receive very close scrutiny
from both the media and civil society
groups. The worry here is that negative
perceptions and public protest
could follow some nanotechnology
applications in a manner akin to that
which has shadowed biotechnology in
the UK and Europe, or chemical and
nuclear technologies in the US. Such
perceptions are important because
www.tcetoday.com december 2009/ january 2010
human behaviour is often based upon
what we believe or perceive to be
true, rather than accepted empirical
evidence of harm.
Five years on from the report, we
are just beginning to build a better
understanding of how the public in
a number of countries perceives and
understands nanotechnology, and how
those perceptions also articulate with
individuals’ risk and benefit judgments
as well as linked attitudinal and
ideological perspectives.
Our own work forms a part of the US
National Science Foundation supported
Center for Nanotechnology in Society
at The University of California at Santa
Barbara (CNS-UCSB), where a major
focus of our work is to understand
the nature of public perceptions of
nanotechnology risks on both sides
of the Atlantic. Public attitudes can
of course be studied with a range
of established methods, but most
typically researchers either use
quantitative surveys or more in-depth
qualitative/deliberative approaches.
and the survey said…
We comment briefly upon our
conclusions from a review of available
quantitative surveys (see further
reading), before outlining results
of a recent deliberative exercise
that we conducted simultaneously
in Cardiff and Santa Barbara. Many
of the survey studies indicate two
apparently contradictory findings.
On the one hand, public knowledge
of nanotechnologies remains very
low. In one of the very first ever
nanotechnology perception surveys, a
UK-wide sample of over 1000 people
conducted for the Royal Society in
January 2004, the majority (71%) was
unaware of the term ‘nanotechnology’.
Subsequent surveys in North America
and Europe have tended to mirror this
pattern, with a majority expressing
lack of awareness of and/or lack of
familiarity with ‘nanotechnologies’.
There is also very little evidence
of any real change in awareness
over the ensuing five years. On the
other hand, a second perhaps more
surprising finding is that on average
people expect that the benefits of
nanotechnology will exceed its risks.
At first sight these two findings
might appear contradictory: how
can one form an opinion about the
acceptability of the risks and benefits
about a set of technologies and/or
applications about which one confesses
to know very little?
This is not inconsistent, however,
with research on other technologies
and risks, where people tend to make
inferences about unfamiliar phenomena
on the basis of the more general
beliefs that they hold. Hence surveys
of public attitudes toward science and
tce 37
public perception of risk
“
The worry here is that negative
perceptions and public protest
could follow some nanotechnology
“
applications in a manner akin to that
which has shadowed biotechnology
in the UK and Europe
technology in general have repeatedly
shown that members of the public
in most nations hold very favourable
views of the future contribution to
society from new developments in
science and engineering. Almost
certainly, some respondents in
nanotechnology surveys are responding
in terms of their general technological
optimism: that is, “nanotechnology
is a new development, therefore it
is bound to bring benefits.” Note,
however, that nanotechnology has
not as yet encountered any of the
high profile accidents (eg nuclear
power) or intense media debates
(GM agriculture), which are known
to amplify public perceptions of
risk. Nuclear power in particular
went through a long period of public
optimism during the 1950s and 60s
before controversy finally struck.
engaging the people
Opinion and attitude surveys can
only be expected to provide relatively
limited insight into the nuances and
reasoning behind attitudinal positions,
particularly where knowledge of the
issue remains very low. Surveys cannot,
for instance, easily uncover the ways
in which people will interpret and
understand the complexities of an
issue when asked to deliberate about
it in more depth. As a result, new and
innovative approaches for engaging
the public about nanotechnology
risks ‘upstream’ are being sought,
such as citizen juries or structured
public participation methods. The idea
of promoting engagement early and
often for emerging technologies has
been gaining support, particularly
amongst civil society groups and
the science communication and
policy communities. It was also a
key recommendation of the 2004
RS/RAE report. Though multiple
approaches exist, all generally involve
tutorials about and consideration of
a technology and any of its potential
social and ethical issues, before
significant advances in research and
development have been realised.
Our own experience shows that
members of the lay public are
38 tce december 2009/ january 2010 www.tcetoday.com
often very adept at discussing new
technologies. In citizen juries a group
of randomly-selected people learn
about a novel issue or difficult social
problem, interrogate expert witnesses
over a period of time, and then
arrive at a set of recommendations.
NanoJuryUK which was sponsored
jointly by the Cambridge Nanoscience
Centre and Greenpeace, and conducted
with participants from West Yorkshire
in 2005, produced a very balanced
set of findings, including the need
to be cautious about the unknown
toxic effects of any new nanomaterials
alongside the recommendation
that the government invests in
nanotechnologies which would be
important for the economy.
Citizen juries can be very
expensive and time consuming to
conduct, and thus we and others
have sought to develop formats that
aim to provide in a single session
information about nanotechnology,
significant time for exploration of
its attributes, informational content
on expert opinion of its risks and
benefits (including sources preferred
by participants), and finally the
opportunity for participants to debate
its implications both materially
and socially. In February 2007 we
conducted the first-ever comparative
cross-national public participation
study of nanotechnologies, providing
a unique opportunity for a detailed
analysis of participants’ views.
Following extensive piloting, a total
of four parallel workshops were
conducted, two in the US (Santa
Barbara, California) and two in
the UK (Cardiff, Wales) each with
groups of between 12 and 15 people.
Evidence from other domains such as
biotechnology indicates that people
view the risks and benefits of separate
applications (eg medical versus
agricultural biotech) very differently.
Accordingly, in each country one of
the workshops focused upon energy
applications of nanotechnologies
and the second on human health
and enhancement. Otherwise the
generic structure of each workshop
was identical and lasted for about
4.5 hours. Information was structured
through several stages: beginning
with initial open-ended discussions
of understandings of energy and
health respectively, before the term
‘nanotechnology’ was introduced;
then a systematic introduction to
nanotechnologies in general and
energy or health/enhancement
nanotechnology applications in
specific; and a series of ‘world café’-
type small group open exploration
and discussion sessions organised
around increasingly-complex
nanotechnology and applications. The
culmination was a guided dialogue
about issues of benefit and risk, trust
and responsibility, societal issues,
and individual preferences. The full
findings of this work were published
in the journal Nature Nanotechnology
in February 20092.
Because we know that attitudes
to science and technology can
differ markedly between nations, we
expected the US and UK participants
to respond in different ways when
presented with information about
the topic. Confirming the findings,
noted earlier, from surveys of
nanotechnology attitudes, we
observed in the workshops that
general perceptions of the benefits
to be gained from new technologies
such as nanotech were uniformly
positive, and common to both the
UK and US participants. However,
views of more uncertain high-profile
new technologies did appear to be
interpreted by the Cardiff participants
against a background of their
awareness of the recent history of
high-profile risk controversies in the
UK (GM Foods, BSE, Foot and Mouth
Disease), something currently lacking
for the US participants.
A more powerful source of
differences was the application
domain (human health/enhancement
or energy). Participants in all of our
groups thought that the impacts of
nanotechnology would ultimately
depend upon the ways in which they
are used. Our two application domains
were selected precisely to reflect
some of the existing diversity in
current nanotechnology science and
engineering research. Participants in
both countries were far more easily
engaged in positive discussions of
energy than of health/enhancement
applications. In particular, new
technology developments to resolve
energy issues were seen as an
urgent, and generally a beneficial
priority. Applications for health
and enhancement by contrast were
thought to raise particular ‘moral’
and ethical questions: for example
should nanotechnologies which boost
physical or cognitive performance be
readily available where they confer
no direct health restorative benefit?
How will society deal with the rapid
pace of change in new nano-health
technologies? A surprising finding
of the research was that these clear
cross-application differences were

far larger than the cross-national
differences present in the study. This
suggests that there is unlikely to be
a single appropriate risk management
and regulatory framework for all
nanotechnologies, but that these
ought to be developed for specific
domains of application as they arise.
The Responsible Nanocode (see www.
nanotechia.org/content/activities2/
responsible-nano-code), a voluntary
framework for business developed
jointly by scientists and engineers,
business representatives, and
consumer and environmental groups,
likewise argues that the responsible
development of nanotechnologies
should be domain-specific, and
proceed through a process of careful
engagement between relevant
stakeholders.
a matter of trust
Trust in risk management, especially
in circumstances where uncertainty
is present, has for many years been
known to be a key determinant of
risk perceptions and acceptability
of new technologies, even ones
where key benefits to society can be
demonstrated. A consistent pattern
in survey research is that lack of trust
in risk management is correlated
with a lack of acceptability for many
controversial technologies. Of course
there is an irresolvable chicken and
egg problem here – do we distrust
the management of technologies we
don’t like, or do we learn to dislike a
technology when we suspect (rightly
or wrongly) that it is not being
managed properly? Indeed scientists
and engineers often fail to recognise
that hostile reactions to a technology
are often as much a judgement
about the perceived adequacy of
its regulation and management
as they are about the safety of
the technology itself. A series of
citizen discussion groups held by
the Woodrow Wilson International
Centre across the US in the summer
of 2005 indicated public concerns
about trust and the regulation of
nanotechnologies. Consistent with
this, the potential activities of
institutions such as government,
regulatory agencies and corporations
were also discussed as a potential
source of future problems in all of
our workshops. The UK participants
in particular displayed a detailed
sense of potentials for misuse, and
were relatively more pessimistic about
the eventual realisation of potential
benefits of health and energy
nanotechnologies, for themselves,
www.tcetoday.com december 2009/ january 2010
public perception of risk
for the UK or for global society. The
US participants also listed corporate
greed, environmental exploitation and
lack of control as important factors
for nanotechnology regulation.
The overall conclusion to draw
from our research so far is that
framing the benefits currently
dominates public understandings of
the future of nanotechnologies, and
persists even when participants are
provided with the opportunity for
balanced engagement with a range
of information and perspectives
regarding potential risks. Where
downsides are discussed they
are, in large part, restricted to
more generic concerns about the
trustworthiness of the institutions the risks of nanotechnology for Medical
charged with managing and energy and health applications in the nanotechnology
regulating nanotechnologies. This US and UK”, Nature Nanotechnology, such as
highlights the need for careful vol 4, Feb 2009, pp95–98 visualised here
regulatory oversight, and above all (nanomachine
3. Satterfield, T, Kandlikar, M,
effective risk management of all attacking a virus)
Beaudrie, C, Conti, J, and Harthorn,
nanotechnologies, as they move is thought by the
B, “Anticipating the perceived
from concept to commercialisation. public to raise
risk of nanotechnologies”, Nature
Nanotechnologies are in a very particular ethical
Nanotechnology, 4(11), November
early phase of development, and issues
2009, pp752–58
mature risk management and
regulatory frameworks have yet to acknowledgements
arise. Much therefore will hinge This article is based on work
upon the ability of these efforts to supported jointly by grants from the
attract public trust. A second clear US National Science Foundation to
conclusion is that many people have CNS-UCSB (cooperative agreement
yet to make up their minds about SES 0531184) and the Leverhulme
nanotechnologies, or hold only weak Trust to Cardiff University (F/00 407/
attitudes. As a result it is impossible AG). Additional support was provided
to say whether the current benefit by NSF and the US Environmental
perceptions are likely to endure, or Protection Agency (cooperative
might change rapidly were a future agreement EF 0830117). Any
significant health, environmental or opinions, findings, and conclusions
safety issue with a nanotechnology or recommendations expressed in this
material or product to occur. The material are those of the author(s)
danger here is that the whole class and do not necessarily reflect the
of nanotechnology applications views of the NSF or the EPA. This work
might be adversely affected by a has not been subjected to EPA review
single isolated event. Once again, we and no official endorsement should
stress that much will depend upon be inferred.
whether early risks are adequately
the authors
managed and overseen so as to
avoid major environmental or health
impacts occurring. Our research is of
course only the starting point in the
critical task of understanding how
nanotechnology risk perceptions are
emerging, and how they will further
evolve in the US and UK, as well as
other countries of the world. tce
further reading Nick Pidgeon (PidgeonN@cardiff.ac.uk) is professor
of environmental psychology at Cardiff University,
1. RS/RAEng, Nanoscience and
UK; Barbara Harthorn is professor and director
nanotechnologies: opportunities and
of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at
uncertainties, chapter 7, Royal Society
University of California at Santa Barbara, US; and
and Royal Academy of Engineering,
Terre Satterfield is professor at the Institute for
London, 2004
Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the
2. Pidgeon, NF, Harthorn, B, Bryant,
University of British Columbia, Canada
K and Rogers-Hayden, T, “Deliberating
tce 39