Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and ... - SAGE Journals

SAGE PUBLICATIONS (www.sagepublications.com)

PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE

Public Understand. Sci. 15 (2006) 221–241

Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government Jane Macoubrie

Public perceptions of emergent technologies have become increasingly important to understand, in part due to the worldwide backlash against genetically modified foods, which effectively stalled a new industry. In this context, and given the predicted importance of nanotechnology, this article reports an investigation of US citizens’ concerns about nanotechnology development. The study investigated both the perceptions of informed citizens and the reasoning basis underlying concerns, as well as explored public concerns in relation to four projected applications of nanotechnology. Two of the applications investigated were thought to be potentially controversial and, thus, perhaps particularly important to formation of public opinion. Results presented here include concerns that were consistent across the study sample, and concerns specific to different regions of the United States. The study found low trust in government to manage risks, and that medical and industrial uses were related to lowest trust in government to manage risks. Higher education levels were also related to lower trust in government to effectively manage risks. Study participants’ concerns were largely based on experiential knowledge about past “breakthroughs” whose limitations and negative effects were poorly understood initially, and even when once known, were poorly managed.

1. Introduction Nanoscience is a rapidly evolving area of knowledge that may have significant impacts on the worldwide economy, as well as on science itself. On nearly a daily basis, scientists report new discoveries about the behavior of phenomena at the nanoscale, 1–100 nanometers in size (1 nanometer is one billionth of one meter), or about one millionth the size of the head of a pin. The behavior of material at the nanoscale can be very different than at the macroscale, and the laws that govern nanoscale material behavior are still being investigated. As nanoscience develops, its application will affect many industries, since it is a method of producing new products rather than an industry unto itself. Nanoscience will increasingly affect basic science, as well, since it crosses disciplinary boundaries (Roco, 2003a, 2003b), and is rapidly affecting US industry and products: nanoscale manipulated materials are in toothpaste, industrial coatings, military hardware, water © SAGE Publications

ISSN 0963-6625

DOI: 10.1177/0963662506056993

222

Public Understanding of Science 15 (2)

desalination filters, cosmetics, computers and other electronic devices, and fabric, to name only a few applications. Will nanotechnology eventually face a backlash of public concerns like those affecting genetically modified crops and foods? No prediction is possible, at this point. But because nanotechnology may be a type of industrial revolution, public concerns are important to understand. As Rogers (1999) has argued, understanding audiences is the first step in effective communication with them. The highest form of conflict resolution—a collaborative, problem-solving approach—is based on first identifying areas of concern, as well. Knowing public concerns about nanotechnology development may be important, then, and much more than general positive/negative affect (attitude or disposition toward) or positions (substantive issue stances) needs understanding as well. To understand decisions (choices) requires understanding the premises on which they are based. Theorists who have separately converged on this conclusion are in different fields: science communication (Rogers, 1999; Miller, 1998), legal and group decisionmaking (Kalven and Zeisel, 1966; Macoubrie, 2002; Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969), and management decision-making (Ericsson and Simon, 1993; Simon, 1976). In addition, research has shown that attitudes towards risk are not just a matter of getting the science right. Public perceptions of risk are in response to different kinds of risks, as risk theorists have said and the science is viewed by the public in its social context (e.g., Hornig, 1992; Priest, 1995; Slovic, 1999). That experts understand the public is important because in the best intentioned efforts, technology experts and the public can talk past each other if they do not grasp differences in what each considers relevant to collective decisions (Goven, 2003; Robins, 2001). In nanotechnology’s present situation, to understand or acknowledge the public’s premises that underlie attitudes or substantive positions would serve both theoretical and practical information needs (Einseidel and Thorne, 1999; Schuler, 2004; Slovic, 1999). Knowing the premises underlying attitudes is relevant to nanotechnology’s present position, whether those premises are collective “social representations,” as opposed to different arguments that lead to “consilience,” or whether attitudes are polarized by oppositional values. Social representations are collectively held beliefs, based on a psychological consensus, socially shared images, knowledge, or in-common attributions (see Breakwell and Cantor, 1993; Farr and Moscovici, 1984; Moscovici, 1984, 2001). A consilience of opinion, on the other hand (Perelman, 1982; Walton, 1996), is a similar conclusion reached from different but converging argument pathways. Billig (1993) has called for investigation of collective arguments underlying social representations. Macoubrie (2002) described decision logics, argument logics that can emerge across a dialogue and can both explain some group decisions as well as illustrate a method for mapping the argument’s logic. Others (Huguet et al., 1998; Wagner et al., 2002) have presented different ways to map coherent factor structures ending in social representations. It remains to be discovered, of course, whether collectively held arguments, as opposed to similar conclusions reached via different argument pathways, better explain public perceptions of nanotechnology. While the premises underlying public choices are fundamental to theory building and to pragmatic communication with the public, the currently existing published studies of US public opinion on nanotechnology (Bainbridge, 2002; Cobb and Macoubrie, 2004) have not shed much light on the publics’ premises, nor has the European Commission’s (2001) study of European attitudes towards nanotechnology. Bainbridge’s study did examine underlying thinking about benefits and concerns, but this was from a volunteer, non-representative sample of university students. Cobb and Macoubrie investigated the US public’s general attitudes and reactions to ideological framing of nanotechnology, but did not investigate

Macoubrie: Nanotechnology

223

other premises on which public perceptions were based. The European Commission collected attitude measures only, rather than premises and reasons for attitudes. The remainder of this article describes a study that examined the basis of US citizens’ positions on and attitudes towards nanotechnology. While Cobb and Macoubrie’s (2004) study examined attitudes of the uninformed public, for this study, informed general public attitudes and premises were sought. Informed public reasoning and concerns were sought both for contrast to Cobb and Macoubrie’s uninformed participant study, and because new information can change minds. Concerns may be different, stronger, or may even be satisfied by information (Burnstein and Santis, 1981; Deutsch and Gerard, 1955; Geist and Chandler, 1984; Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan and Miller, 1987). Deeper information processing also affects attitude strength and judgments (Griffin et al., 2002). Informed public opinions not only might be different, but might be more stable and thus helpful to understanding how public opinion about nanotechnology may develop as the science becomes more well known. For the study, public concerns in relation to several potentially controversial applications for nanotechnology were also investigated.

2. Method To investigate concerns of an informed public and the effect of nanotechnology development scenarios, the study used a 3 by 4 quasi-experimental design. Quasi-experiments are field experiments in which one variable is controlled, while all others are left to vary as they naturally occur (Cook and Campbell, 1979; Shadish et al., 2002). In each of three regional sites, participants were presented with one of four scenarios. Each scenario depicted a particular pathway for nanotechnology development, or four different scenarios, represented in written briefing materials. There was no expectation that stimuli such as the briefing materials might inherently cause a particular type of public response. Rather, the assumption was that participants would draw on existing values and knowledge in combination with the new information, and the conclusions reached thus could be usefully contrasted with those of the uninformed public. Data were collected on individual concerns, expressed privately, and a questionnaire was used to gather data on attitudes towards nanotechnology, trust in government to manage risks, and participant demographics. Concerns about nanotechnology were elicited after participants read the briefing information. Data were collected from experimental groups, where scenario materials were distributed and discussed, although the concerns and reasoning data presented here are aggregated individual data. Information on anticipated benefits from nanotechnology was collected but will be presented in a separate article. Procedures Study participants were brought together in quasi-experimental groups (four experimental conditions) at each of three study locations. Although groups were used in the study, they were experimental groups rather than focus groups. Focus groups are essentially group interviews (e.g., Krueger, 1994), whereas individual-level data were sought for this study. Experimental groups were used for efficiency and control: individuals could read the experimental materials in situ, in group settings, to control for knowledge that might otherwise be gained between recruitment and exposure to experimental materials. Each group of participants first read their experimental materials, and individuals were asked to silently consider and record three or four concerns they might have about nanotechnology.

224


Each concern was recorded by participants on a 5 7 inch2 card, along with their personal reason or reasons for that concern. After providing individual concerns and reasons, each group then spent about 40 minutes discussing both concerns and expected benefits; a standardized 1.5 hours was allotted to each group. Fifteen individuals were recruited for each group, although because not all recruited individuals attended, group size ranged from nine to 15 participants. After the discussion, individuals completed a 15-item questionnaire1 and received $60 for their participation. Experimental conditions: briefing materials The briefing materials describing each scenario, the four experimental conditions, were oneand-one-half to four pages in length and designed to be read in less than 20 minutes. The materials were written for the study by the author and reviewed, for clarity and accuracy, by several nanoscientists with a broad understanding of the subject, as well as by naive readers. Two critical choices were made in development of the briefing material. The first was a decision to develop the materials as a lay-written review of knowledge, to focus on facts and evidence relevant to nanotechnology and its development. This choice was based on results of a recent British study of media coverage of science (Hargreaves et al., 2003). That study’s authors concluded that journalists had contributed to public misunderstanding of science by reporting scientific controversy on childhood vaccinations, but not consistently reporting the evidence underlying the debate. This appears to have led to inaccurate British public perceptions about measles vaccinations and a purported link to autism. This link had been suggested by one study, but its results had not been replicable in subsequent studies. In this situation, the British public’s understanding accurately captured the controversy as portrayed by journalists, but that understanding was ill founded. A second important choice in developing the nanotechnology briefing materials was to explain nanoscience concepts by using metaphors that would be familiar to most people, in addition to using accurate scientific language. Using familiar metaphors is a teaching strategy that helps to make complex ideas accessible, and here, was intended to give adults with different education levels the greatest chance of absorbing the ideas. The status of nanotechnology was also represented by using many examples of current discoveries or existing applications, cited to the source in footnotes, for credibility.2 The examples were gathered from nanoscience news sources and nanotechnology industry publications, and since nanotechnology is an international phenomenon, US and international examples were used. Condition 1 materials presented basic information and an overview of nanotechnology applications in general. Condition 1 groups thus represent the least informed individuals in this study. Individuals in Condition 2 received basic information plus specific information on medical and industrial nanoresearch, and anticipated and actual current uses such as in cancer treatment or disease diagnosis, electronics, energy production, and environmental cleanup. Condition 2 materials also noted the potential convergence of medical biotechnology and nanotechnology. Conditions 3 and 4 were thought to be the potentially controversial developmental scenarios. Condition 3 materials focused on the theory and scientific controversy of molecular manufacturing, as hypothesized by Eric Drexler (1990, 1992) and others. The essence of Drexler’s theory is that by using computer-driven algorithms, feedstocks of basic elements, and self-assembly, nanotechnology may eventually be used to create virtually any product. Like all the materials, Condition 3 materials first explained the basics of nanotechnology, then the principles of Drexler’s theory. Known facts, evidence, and reasoning


225

underlying both Drexler’s and others’ theoretical positions on molecular manufacturing were presented. Condition 4 materials also emphasized another potentially controversial area, nanotechnology that may result in enhancement of the abilities of the human mind and body. Participants For this study, data were collected from individuals in experimental groups, where the briefing materials were distributed and read. Three variable-size cities in the southeast, midwest, and western regions of the United States were chosen as sampling sites, both to discover attitudes that might be affected by regional economic and cultural situations, as well as to enhance sampling the plurality of US ethnicity, income levels, education, etc. Participants (N = 152) self-assigned themselves randomly to the experimental conditions, without knowledge of doing so, by choosing group meeting times that fit their schedule. A professional firm conducted recruitment in the selected sites of St. Paul MN, San Diego CA, and Raleigh-Durham NC. Recruitment lists were randomly generated telephone number lists in selected zip codes, which were chosen to maximize recruitment of lower income individuals and ethic minority groups, since these groups participate less in local opportunities to discuss public policy issues. Study participants were fairly representative of the US population, although more highly educated and slightly older that the population as a whole (see Table 1 for a comparison of the participant sample to US Census Bureau (2000) statistics).

Table 1. Participant demographics Gender %

Ethnicity %

M

F

Cauc.

Afr. Am.

Asian Am.

Hisp./ Latino

Study sample

53

47

77

11

3

4

2000 Census

49

51

77

13

4.2

12.5

Mean income

$50K

Mean age

EDU % at edu. levels

43

HS SC CD > CD HS SC CD > CD

35.3

= = = = = = = =

9 27 30 27 27 21 26 9

Note: Ethnicity does not add to 100% because ‘other’ ethnicity in the sample was 6%. Abbreviations: EDU = education. Income = household mean income. HS = high school diploma, SC = some college, CD = college degree, > CD = graduate study or degree.

Analyzing concerns Concerns were expressed privately by participants after they had read the briefing materials for their experimental condition. Multiple concerns about nanotechnology were allowed per person, up to a limit of four; the total number of concerns expressed was N = 377, or about 2 per person. Practices of rigorous qualitative analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1984; Yin, 1989) were followed to analyze concerns, which were classified and, by topical concern, then summarized quantitatively. Following Miles and Huberman’s

226


recommended practices for cross-case analysis, first individual-level concerns were noted sequentially in a data log, for each group; no concerns were excluded. Each log entry retained as much as possible the citizens’ own words and focused on “the point” that was stressed. Concerns had been expressed on 5 7 inch2 cards. If a card held only the words “health effects,” the log entry was simply those words. If a card held the question “How will this affect sensitive individuals?,” “effect on sensitive individuals” was recorded in the data log. Based on the log of concerns for each group, analysis focused on summarizing the local (statement-level) subjects or issues. To rigorously summarize the concerns expressed, the author utilized knowledge about understanding others’ points and dialogue topics. That body of knowledge asserts that people understand others’ points by tracking the more general issue, called the “global” topic or subject (Cegala et al., 1989; Tracy, 1982, 1983; Reinhart, 1981). “Local” or statement-level topics are made coherent, in a complex conversation, by their organization within global issues or topics. Here, the strategy used was to group local concerns in more general, logical global concern groupings, to render the 377 concerns intelligible as a whole (see Table 2 for an example), but retaining as well the individual voice that gives the global topic labels greater meaning. For the same reason, the labels given to the subject or issue clusters are expressions used by individuals in the study. Table 2. Example of local issues and summary global issues General (global) concern

Local (statement-level) expression of concern

Long-term health effects

Long-term risks of ultra-fine pigments, nanocosmetics, wearing nanopants Breakthroughs that turn into disasters Biodegradable nanostructures’ effect on food chain

Summaries were first produced for each group. The group summaries were then merged to produce a cross-case summary for each region, in order to locate shared concerns across all the groups. The most frequently mentioned concerns were not reduced further (military concerns and long-term health concerns are two examples). Lower frequency concerns were reexamined and, if possible, grouped under a slightly more general issue label, in order to retain the most concerns possible while reducing complexity to a manageable level. The focus of analysis at this level, thus, was on aggregating concerns as topical issues rather than on tracing arguments.3 Tracing arguments could be a valid way to understand premises and choices, but for this study, concerns or issues were investigated as global issues. The summarization process was intended to discover shared concerns across all participants, and, later, the summaries were examined to discover any differences related to experimental condition and locale of participants. Following discovery of the global issues, less than 15 outliers remained. Since the local-level concerns formed a coherent global set with so few outliers, the outliers are not discussed further in this article. Finally, another phase of analysis examined the reasons given for concerns, and results for both global concerns and expressions of reasoning are presented below. Attitude data from participant exit surveys are also presented. 3. Results In this section, results from the open-ended concern data are discussed first; results from the questionnaire data follow. Connections between the two forms of data will be discussed in the conclusions section of this article.


227

Concerns about nanotechnology: cross-condition analysis Summarizing the individual concerns revealed a coherent group of 12 global issues across all the experimental conditions. These concerns are shown in descending order of frequency in Table 3. The five most prevalent concerns are military uses, long-term health effects, environmental footprint, controllability of trajectory, and social footprint.

Table 3. Cross-condition concerns, global issues

Military uses and ‘evil doers’ Long-term health effects Environmental ‘footprint’ Controllability of trajectory Social footprint Potential loss of freedoms and privacy Regulators’ loss of control Losing funding for other priorities The possibility of Drexler’s “molecular manufacturing” Ethics of uses and effect on nature ‘Insulated’ scientists and regulators Responsible control Total observations

f

%

64 56 48 39 36 25 22 21 20 16 15 15

17 15 13 10 9 7 6 6 5 4 4 4

N = 377

100

Reasons underlying areas of concern Global issues are the tracking mechanism by which people understand each other in a conversation, but as dialogue theorists have said, both the local and global issues are important to making sense of others’ contributions to a dialogue (Tracy, 1982, 1983; Reichmann, 1978). What “ethics” or “long-term health effects” mean, to the people who raised the issue, is most clear, for example, when the substance of these abstract labels is shown with the main sub-issues identified by the participants. For example, “regulator loss of control” is a phrase expressed by a citizen in this study, adopted as the label for similar concerns raised by others. This global concern is intelligible, but is illuminated in important ways by evidence of the more specific issues raised under this global label. For these study participants, regulator loss of control includes “rushing to consumer without knowing downstream effects” and “lack of transparency means loss of regulator control.” A similar but different global issue, “responsible control,” includes concerns such as “need to define the rules of the road” and “setting and enforcing limits.” “Loss of control” and “setting rules of the road” are two sides of the same coin but are separate issues as well, and seeing them in that way helps preserve the layers of concern about nanotechnology development. The “social footprint” area is a general label for social concerns ranging from world political instability to US employment to quality of life. It includes specific concerns such as “economic downside, efficiency causing loss of employment,” “effect on world politics,” “benefits that do not necessarily mean higher quality of life,” and “invasive social effects caused by industry obsolescence.” Each of these sub-concerns occurred in smaller numbers,

228


and for the sake of coherence were grouped under this label. Another area of concern was labeled “’insulated’ scientists and regulators,” again using the study participants’ language. This concern was related as scientists and regulators who may not have “opportunities to hear the public,” who are more in touch with and “compromised by politics and industry,” and may perceive “people as impediments to progress.” The “ethics” area includes concerns about “the effects of playing creator with unknown effects” and whether scientists will chose to develop “trivial applications versus important ones.” “Potential loss of freedoms” includes “surveillance without one’s knowledge, by government or evil doers,” “lack of public voice means loss of freedom,” and concern for “personal control and informed consent.” Concerns for “long-term health effects” were the second-largest global concern voiced by study participants, including “past breakthroughs that turn into disasters,” “effects on sensitive individuals,” “potential malfunction within the body,” and “long-term risks of ultra-fine pigments in cosmetics or in nano-enhanced pants.” When participants talked about “breakthroughs” becoming major problems, they cited examples such as dioxin, Agent Orange, military bases contaminated by toxic waste from new technology, PCBs, nuclear waste, asbestos, and so forth. The general concern seems to be that nanotechnology could create similar situations if long-term effects are not well considered. Relatively few concerns were expressed about Drexler’s theory of molecular manufacturing, although this was the subject of one experimental condition; a quarter of study participants were in this condition. Concerns expressed about molecular manufacturing were primarily “is this real or possible” statements, and often, Drexler’s theory was seen as a potential threat to the economy (jobs) rather than a boon to consumers. A few comments made on Drexlerian molecular manufacturing such as concerns for “takeovers by nanobots” were typically also hedged by their makers, as in “this will seem crazy, but . . .” After classification by global concern, a second phase of analysis examined the reasoning or basis of concerns. Table 3 presented the global areas of concern; Table 4 further illuminates these by presenting the most salient local concerns under the global labels, as well as by classifying these by the type of reasoning used. A simple approach to understanding reasoning was chosen: to classify reasons as either grounded in experience and past failures, or based on “true unknowns” that neither scientists nor the public can predict. A close reading of the concerns, as expressed by the citizens, revealed frequent use of experiential examples in justifying concerns. Examples were given in support of concerns, such as illness from Gulf War Syndrome, public health effects of dioxin, PCBs, asbestos, etc., or military sites contaminated by unanticipated toxic wastes. Based on experience and knowledge of the world we live in, that is, that “evil doers” might want to use nanotechnology for weapons of mass destruction or for terrorism, this is an “experiencegrounded” concern, rather than a true unknown whose outcome no one can envision. On the other hand, a concern that nanoscience might raise risks such as “new and virulent viruses because we messed with them” is a true unknown, a risk for which no experience or knowledge base exists for the ordinary person, nor for scientists. If one has seen that public health or safety is compromised by industry influence on regulation, then that concern is knowledge based. Classifying the underlying reasoning by using codes for true unknowns (TU) and experience-grounded concerns (EG), the extent of these sources of concern can be seen (Table 4). As might be expected, the concerns expressed by study participants are a mixture of true unknown risks (n = 18) and risks and concern grounded in experience (n = 359). True unknown reasons are 5 percent of the total, however; experience-grounded concerns predominate.


229

Table 4. Frequently mentioned and most striking concerns Global issues N = 377 1.

Military uses, ‘evil doers’ f = 64

Frequently mentioned and most striking concerns, in natural language of subjects New weapons of mass destruction New arms race: bad for economy, trade, human progress The history of short-sighted military technology causing unforeseen, unethical and disastrous environmental or personal health consequences Military or terrorist use via purposes not intended Combat and terrorism ‘efficiency’ = greater vulnerability Invisible military uses that thwart detection Small scale makes ‘personal’ terrorism possible ‘Evil’ uses posing a danger to humanity Threat to populations without military nanotechnology

EG EG EG

Long-term risks of ultra-fine pigments, nanocosmetics, wearing nanopants Breakthroughs that turn into disasters Biodegradable nanostructures’ effect on food chain Unexpected effects in the blood stream, such as on hemophilia Effects on sensitive individuals, allergies, and the immune system New and virulent viruses because we meddled with them Health effects such as bioaccumulation Risks from embryo effects Altered genetic structures Potential malfunction within body How to stop adverse reactions Unanticipated effects on body, mind, and ‘being’

EG EG TU TU EG TU EG EG TU TU TU TU

EG EG TU EG EG EG

2.

Long term health effects f = 56

3.

Environmental Indestructible new products footprint New pollutants, toxins, bizarre combinations in environment f = 48 Unexpected interactions in the environment Unintended side effects on bacteria or viruses, genetics Nanogarbage: pollution from buildup ‘Breakthroughs’ without long-term discovery of significant environmental harm

EG TU TU TU EG EG

4.

Controllable trajectory f = 39

Once it’s out there, can you put it away when you’re done? Human controlled outcomes wanted

TU

5.

Social footprint f = 36

Effect on world politics and the nanodivide Economic downside, efficiency causing loss of employment Will we develop it and then export the jobs Industry obsolescence, ‘invasive’ social effects Worker retraining, ineffective education system Worker marginalization Cost to taxpayer, trade-offs Rising medical costs: will it cost an arm and a leg? Benefits that do not necessarily lead to higher quality of life A longer-lived population without thought of how to support them

EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG EG

6.

Potential loss of freedoms and privacy f = 25

Surveillance without one’s knowledge, by government, industry, or evil doers Loss of control of personal information on invisible chips Lack of public voice means loss of freedom ‘Laptop’ uses: portable, undetectable, multi-users, no track How to choose to avoid nano exposure Personal control and informed consent Potential for secrecy in nanostructure exposure

EG EG EG TU EG EG EG

EG

230


Table 4. continued Global issues N = 377

Frequently mentioned and most striking concerns, in natural language of subjects

7.

Regulator loss Rushing to the consumer without downstream effects’ knowledge of control Lack of transparency will mean loss of regulator control f = 22 Rush to market precedes regulation Rush to profit before safety is known Regulators compromised by industrial interests

EG EG EG EG EG

8.

Potential to lose other priorities f = 21

Detracting spending from education and social needs Losing funding for other technologies’ development If disease detection and diagnosis, why not disease prevention?

EG EG EG

9.

Drexlerian molecular manufacturing f = 20

Effect on employment overall Type of jobs created versus eliminated Is this real? Risks versus scare Who would ultimately control this

EG EG TU TU

10. Ethics f = 16

Changing ‘human’ life and life quality, the natural world Effects of playing creator with unknown effects Moral dilemma of choosing to ‘manage’ evolution or decide on separation Use in trivial applications versus important ones Who decides right and wrong uses Could we upset the balance of nature? Expending limited resources that benefit few

TU TU EG EG EG TU EG

11. Insulated scientists and regulators f = 15

Both politicians and scientists have a conflict of interest in long-term decisions Without outsider voices, scientific community groupthink People seen as impediments to progress

EG EG EG

12. Responsible control f = 15

Defining the rules of the road Are we capable of responsible management? Two sides of the regulatory coin: over-regulation could kill opportunities, but it isn’t likely that current regulations are enough Setting and enforcing limits

EG EG EG EG

Concerns about nanotechnology by region In the previous analysis, concerns were aggregated across the experimental conditions and across the three regional study sites. While the overall pattern of concerns is important to know, another level of analysis investigated concerns in relation to the four experimental conditions and to the three regional samples. Both regional and experimental condition differences were found. These are interesting enough to warrant exploration here, despite the relatively small number of individuals participating at each study location and in each condition. Concerns were present in significant differences, between regions, for four areas of concern (p = < .05). In order of highest significant difference, these are: insulated scientists, environmental footprint, responsible control, and military uses and evil doers. The frequencies shown in Table 5 reveal that the Minnesota sample expressed a much higher expression of concern for insulated scientists. Both Raleigh-Durham and St. PaulMinneapolis MN expressed greater concern for military uses and evil doers. The RaleighDurham NC sample expressed greater concern for responsible control (rules of the road),


231

Table 5. Global concerns by region f

Military uses, evil doers Long-term health effects Environmental footprint Controllability of trajectory Social footprint Potential loss of freedoms, privacy Regulators’ loss of control Losing funding for other priorities Drexlerian molecular manufacturing Ethics of uses and effect on nature Responsible control: rules of the road ‘Insulated’ scientists and groupthink

RD

SD

St.P

χ2

LR

p

28 20 22 16 15 5 4 8 5 5 11 2

15 10 14 6 12 7 5 3 8 8 2 2

22 26 13 16 11 14 12 12 7 3 2 12

8.246 3.720 9.724 3.152 4.219 3.991 3.602 2.564 3.445 7.623 12.191 9.292

9.157 3.660 9.889 3.240 4.287 4.213 3.739 2.749 3.221 7.185 11.812 9.379

.010 .156 .008 .207 .121 .136 .165 .278 .179 .332 .002 .009

Abbreviations: Abbreviations: RD = Raleigh/Durham, NC. SD = San Diego. St.P = St. Paul, MN.

and additionally, greater concern for the potential environmental footprint of nanotechnology. Concerns about nanotechnology by experimental condition The previous section presented concerns relevant to participants’ regional locations; concerns were also analyzed in relation to the four experimental conditions (Table 6). Nine out of the 12 global areas of concern were related to the developmental scenarios with probability beyond chance (p = < .05). These results include that, first, participants in Condition 1 showed markedly higher frequencies of concern for responsible control (p = .027), so the finding of a significant difference between that and other conditions seems to be attributable to this concern. Concerns for insulated scientists were highest in relation to Condition 2 (p = .000), on the other hand, which had discussed medical and industrial applications for nanotechnology. Concern for losing funding for other priorities

Table 6. Global concerns by condition Condition

Military uses, evil doers Long-term health effects Environmental footprint Controllability of trajectory Social footprint Potential loss of freedoms, privacy Regulators’ loss of control Losing funding for other priorities Drexlerian molecular manufacturing Ethics of uses and effect on nature Responsible control: rules of the road ‘Insulated’ scientists and groupthink

Statistics

1

2

3

4

χ

LR

p

10 11 4 12 5 10 5 6 4 3 7 1

10 8 12 5 15 8 6 13 4 3 2 12

24 15 14 10 12 6 8 2 10 6 3 1

21 22 19 11 6 2 2 2 2 4 3 2

16.336 13.597 11.238 9.218 10.789 13.751 4.631 22.263 7.117 .812 9.146 27.080

16.915 14.646 11.744 9.458 11.017 14.303 5.375 22.422 7.350 .798 7.719 23.903

.016 .004 .011 .027 .013 .003 .201 .000 .068 .847 .027 .000

2

Note: Condition 1 = General information; Condition 2 = general plus medical and industrial applications; Condition 3 = Drexlerian molecular manufacturing; Condition 4 = nano-enhanced mind and body.

232

Public Understanding of Science 15 (2) Table 7. Prior nanotechnology knowledge Prior knowledge (%)

Present study N = 152

National survey N = 1536

Heard almost nothing A little Some or a lot

56 39 5.7

51.8 31.8 16.4

was also present in significantly greater proportions in relation to Condition 2 (p = .000). Further, Condition 2 together with Condition 1 (the least information condition) generated higher concern for loss of freedoms and privacy (p = .003). Conditions 2 and 3 were together related to greater concern for social footprint or impact (p = .01); Condition 3 presented the scenario of Drexlerian molecular manufacturing and evidence for and against that possible development. Concerns for military uses were highest in groups exposed to Conditions 3 and 4 (p = .016), and these experimental conditions also were related to higher concerns for long-term health effects (p = .004), and for environmental footprint (p = .011). Levels of public knowledge This study intended to create an informed group of participants, so it is relevant to know whether these participants were initially higher or lower in knowledge about nanotechnology. A comparison shows that as in the national survey sample (N = 1536 (Cobb and Macoubrie, 2004)), 95 percent of the present study’s participants had heard almost nothing or a little about nanotechnology. As well, less than 1 percent of the study participants had read Prey or Swarm (science fiction novels featuring nanotechnology predators that might lead to a negative view of nanotechnology), again as with the national sample. Pre- and post-participation attitudes, change, and risks versus benefits Gaining new information may or may not change an individual’s choices or perceptions, thus, attitude changes occurring after study participation were of interest. Initial attitudes, attitude change, and general direction of change are shown in Table 8. A significant amount of attitude change took place, and generally that change was in a positive direction (χ2 = 29.608, df = 6, p = .000, two-tailed test). The change was largely from more neutral to more positive, rather than from negative to positive, however. After participating in the study, participants also expected that benefits of nanotechnology would exceed risks, and this finding exists despite half of the study conditions having represented potentially controversial applications of nanotechnology—molecular manufacturing and human body/ intelligence enhancement (Table 9). Table 8. Participant attitude and change Amount of change Original attitude

Almost none

A little

Quite a bit

A great deal

N

Neutral Positive Negative Total

9 16 0 25

27 24 1 52

48 6 0 54

16 5 0 21

100 51 1 152


233

Table 9. Benefits vs. risks, by region

Benefits will exceed risks Risks will exceed benefits Total

Raleigh-Durham, NC

San Diego

St. Paul-Minneapolis

Total

43 4 47

37 5 42

42 13 55

122 22 144*

*Surveys missing these data = 8. χ2 = 5.001, df = 2, p = .082.

Trust in government, by demographic group, across conditions Attitudes towards nanotechnology prior to the study were predominantly either neutral or positive. Men’s attitudes were initially more neutral, while women’s were initially generally positive (Pearson chi-square = 15.437, df = 2, p = .000). Men’s attitudes changed more after study participation (Pearson chi-square = 29.608, df = 6, p = .000, two tailed), and changed in a positive direction, so that both men and women left the study with a generally positive attitude towards nanotechnology. There were no significant differences in general attitude as related to education level, gender, political ideology, age, or ethnicity. Further, across the demographic variables, participants generally expected benefits of nanotechnology to exceed risks. Trust in government to manage risks was notably low, however. In the present study, if the “don’t know” trust answers were aggregated with the “not much” trust category, low or don’t know answers would equal 62 percent, about the same amount of low trust in industry leaders found in the national study (60 percent) (see Table 10). Trust in relation to demographic variables (so far, without respect to the experimental conditions) was investigated using logistic regression. For this analysis, trust and education were recoded as binary variables (either “high” or “low” education and “positive” or “negative” trust in government). Negative trust includes “not much” and “don’t know” answers on the trust questions. Results show that trust was not significantly related to ethnicity, gender, age, political ideology, or geographical location. While 62 percent of the study sample has low trust in government to manage risks, that low trust is not related to any of the just mentioned demographic factors. Trust was related to higher education, however, but in a negative direction (B = 2.032, SE = .636, Wald = 10,206, p = .001). Amounts of positive trust are significantly lower, that is, for individuals with education levels of college degree or higher. Table 10. Trust that nanotechnology risks will be effectively managed Trust (%)

Present Study N = 152

National Survey N = 1536

Not much or don’t know Some or a lot

62 35

60.4 39.6

*Percentage does not add to 100% because of data missing from some surveys.

Experimental condition: effect on trust, demographic groups, and regional concerns In the above sub-section, results were presented showing overall trust in government and effects of education, without consideration of how experimental conditions affected results.

234


Table 11. Trust predicted by condition and region

a

Positive trust Region 1—Raleigh-Durham Region 2—San Diego Region 3—St. Paul-Minneapolis Condition 1—Basic information Condition 2—Med. & ind. Condition 3—Molecular mfg. Condition 4—Body enhancement

B

StdError

Wald

df

–.950 1.015 1.229 0b .078 –.348 –.394 0b

.420 .457 .4678

5.114 4.940 6.918

.541 .507 .494

.885 .493 .435

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

p .024 .026 .009 1.081 .706 .674

a

The reference category is negative trust. This parameter is set to 0 because it is redundant. Log likelihood chi-square = 35.159, Nagelkerke pseudo R-square = .100, df = 5, p = .079. b

This section, then, focuses on the developmental scenarios presented in the four experimental conditions and their effect on trust and reactions of demographic groups. Results show that the application scenarios modestly affected expectations of benefits versus risks and overall attitudes (Table 11). Scenario conditions 2, 3, and 4 did have significant effects on trust, on regional differences in concern, as well as revealing gender differences. Trust is present in a negative direction, as well, in a regression model containing only Condition 2 (medical and industrial applications for nanotechnology) and study participants in San Diego and St. Paul-Minneapolis (log likelihood chi square = 5.142, df = 1, p = < .05). Individuals in Condition 2, in other words, expressed more negative trust in two of three groups, the groups in San Diego and St. Paul-Minneapolis. Participants’ attitude change was also significantly different by gender, but only in relation to Condition 3 (χ2 = 2.833, df = 1, p = .013) and Condition 4 (χ2 = 5.148, df = 1, p = .023), and attitude change was positive. Males exposed to Conditions 3 and 4 changed more “neutral” attitudes to “positive” and in these two conditions 80 percent of men changed attitudes “a lot.” Table 11 shows regression statistics for all regions in relation to all conditions, and overall, this full set of variables does not predict trust results (log likelihood chi square = 35.159, Nagelkerke pseudo R-square = .100, df = 5, p = .079). 4. Discussion and conclusions This study was conducted with three primary objectives: (1) to discover basic attitudes about nanotechnology held by informed adults who are broadly representative of the US public, (2) to learn about their concerns about nanotechnology in relation to four development scenarios representing application areas of interest to nanoscientists in government and industry, and (3) to explore the reasoning underlying any concerns. Two potentially controversial applications, molecular manufacturing and human body enhancement, were among the four scenarios. The individuals taking part in the 12 issue groups in three regions were more highly educated than the US general public, and were strongly positive about the potential of nanotechnology even after reading the potentially controversial informational materials. The “concern” “that I won’t live to see this!” is one example of the generally positive expectations for nanoscience and nanotechnology that were found. Overall, however, low trust in government to effectively manage risks was found in 62 percent of participants, and individuals with higher education (a college degree or higher) had significantly lower trust in government to management risks, as well. In their national


235

survey, Cobb and Macoubrie (2004) had found that 60 percent of the general public expressed a similarly low level of trust in industry leaders to effectively manage risks. Together, these low trust findings are a backdrop against which nanotechnology will develop, and neither is related to ethnicity, age, political ideology, gender, or regional location. Nanotechnology is still an emergent interdisciplinary area of discovery that may have important impacts on the US and world economy, but it is developing against a background of experience-based expectations that the responsible parties in the United States will not effectively manage any risks. Low trust in government to effectively manage risks is particularly noteworthy in relation to one particular discovery of this study: that trust was significantly lower in two of three regions for individuals exposed to Condition 2, which represented general industrial and medical applications. The finding that trust was significantly lower when individuals were exposed to this experimental condition is important in two ways. First, the applications that were discussed in Condition 2 are those expected by industry to emerge first, and have already begun to emerge. Lowest trust in relation to the most common applications is not a good sign, and seems to show a marked loss of trust in industry and in government to manage technology risks to benefit the public interest. Added to this is the finding that concern for insulated scientists and groupthink was highest among individuals exposed to Condition 2, and that frequencies of concern for nanotechnology’s social footprint were highest in Conditions 2 and 3. While the most general applications, including consumer products, electronics, medical, and industrial applications are uniformly seen as beneficial, they are also linked firmly to lack of trust in management of risks. Perhaps most notable is that the most potentially controversial applications, molecular manufacturing and human potential enhancement, were not significantly related to lack of trust, whereas the more familiar applications were. The study participants agreed on many common areas of concern, and their concerns were largely based on past experience and knowledge rather than emotion. Study participants gave many examples in explaining their reasons for concerns: Agent Orange, dioxin, PCBs, nuclear waste, Gulf War Syndrome, asbestos, etc. Concrete events in the past were linked to the current concerns. Reasoning based on past experience was far more common than concerns based on true unknowns, such as mutant viruses or out-of-control nanostructures within the body. The true unknowns (“probability unknown”) are present but were less than 5 percent of concerns expressed and so are far outweighed by “plausible” concerns grounded in experience. The extent of concerns based on past experience helps to explain, I believe, the finding of low expectations in, or low trust in, government to effectively manage any nanotechnology risks. “Anything can be used for good or bad,” as one participant noted, but participants’ past experience reflects not prior experience of technology used to bad ends, but for good ends whose negative downsides were not anticipated. Priest (1995) and Robins (2001) have concluded elsewhere, and the individuals here seem to concur, that technology itself is often less the source of concern than is its indirect consequences. That low trust existed across education levels of participants, but was lower yet in relation to higher education levels (college degrees and beyond) also requires some explanation. The data themselves do not provide a precise explanation, although that might be gained from additional study. But it does seem logical that higher education might particularly lead to an expectation that government and industry should effectively manage risks. If these individuals are representative of the larger public, and only further study can confirm that, industry and government appear to be creating a disaffected public through what individuals expressed as “a rush to profit before risks are known.” That the most highly

236


educated individuals have lower trust should make this a particular concern, however. At this emergent phase of nanotechnology development, creating better ways to predict those risks and protect against them might go far in restoring public trust of government and the US medical industry. “Selling” nanotechnology without knowledge of long-term risks does not seem likely to counter concerns grounded in past experience, and does seem likely to repeat the error of the genetically modified foods industry, pressing ahead while ignoring public concerns. The majority of respondents in this study were at once concerned about known areas of risk, still clearly interested in the benefits (to be explicated separately and discussed in detail elsewhere), excited about the potential of nanotechnology, but concerned about its employment and other social effects, concerned that over-regulation could negate the potential, and concerned that if other countries are developing nanotechnology, the United States should not fall behind. They scorned “trivial” applications (such as cosmetics and wrinkle-free fabrics), and wished to encourage important applications such as in water quality, medical uses to reduce human suffering, and applications that would alleviate distress in developing countries. Nanoscientists can take heart from the interest clearly present on the part of the public, evident in the finding that while concerns are expressed, benefits are still expected to exceed risk. But government and industry should take heed of an apparently disaffected public and loss of trust. There are clearly policy implications for these results that bear attention. Additionally, the low trust is especially noteworthy as related to nanotechnology applications that are expected to benefit the public and the economy first, and indeed, are being introduced presently. For industry, the concerns and lack of trust should raise a caution flag in the race to be first to market. This study can also be taken as a baseline account of US risk perceptions, and the results used in further risk perception studies as nanotechnology develops. For risk theorists, that no gender differences were found here calls for further study, since gender differences have so often been discovered in relation to other technologies. The absence of gender differences may be significant, although an explanation for this is not immediately obvious. Additionally, these results may be useful in risk communication about nanotechnology. Yet it seems unlikely that either “education” or image campaigns can easily mitigate a strong lack of trust, linked in the public mind to decades of past failures to consider downstream risks. Rather, perhaps in this situation, problem solving with the public, the highest form of conflict resolution, is the most appropriate form of risk communication. Experience-based perceptions seem most likely to be changed by active problem solving to identify the means by which negative downstream effects can be more sufficiently considered and effectively managed. Relevant to the above conclusions are two methodological issues. First, social footprint is a global issue here but also one that could have subsumed a larger array of sub-concerns. Concerns that are currently separate but that could be counted as social concerns include regulatory concerns, loss of freedoms, and losing funding for other priorities. Had these topics been placed under the social footprint label, social footprint would become the greatest area of concern. Second, whether the concerns raised by participants in this study were simply those suggested to participants in the materials is a relevant question, but that does not seem to be the case. A great many concerns listed above were not discussed in the materials. The materials did not mention, for example, loss of control by regulators, “insulated” scientists or regulators, ethical issues such as the “natural world” or loss of freedoms, or the potential for nanotechnology funding to draw from other priorities. Military applications were


237

mentioned, but since few products exist in that area, and that was noted in the briefing materials, citizen concern in this area is based more on their own expectations and less on the materials. The frequency with which study participants raise military applications as a concern is also greatly disproportionate to the emphasis given them in the materials. Further, specific concerns raised in relation to long-term health effects, such as bioaccumulation, breakthroughs that turn into disasters, or effect on sensitive individuals, were not issues raised in the briefing materials. This is true again for the concerns raised and grouped under the label “social footprint,” such as effect on world politics, potential job losses, industry obsolescence, and “benefits” that do not lead to higher quality of life. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, two additional conclusions can be reached. First, the concerns of individuals participating in this study are not simply attributable to the information with which they were provided. Second, had distinct concerns been aggregated under the social footprint label, that area of concern would be the largest category of concern expressed. Finally, on a more theoretical note, there is the question raised earlier in this article, whether public perceptions would best be explained by social representation theory (based on collectively held, in-common beliefs), or consilience (conclusions reached via divergent paths), or explained by attitudes grounded in different values or ideologies, thus polarizing the issues. The last explanation can be eliminated, since the study results do not suggest polarized attitudes, but show a coherent pattern of similar rather than polarized concerns. The pattern of concerns, low trust in government, and expectations that benefits would exceed risks were also not related to ideology, ethnicity, age group, or region. Second, a consilience of opinion is suggested as the dominant explanation, since the results show a diverse array of local, specific issues that build up into clear and consistent global areas of concern, e.g., military uses, long-term health effects, environmental footprint, and social footprint. Social representation theory, or a collectively held cognition, however, does seem to explain one portion of the results, the findings of lower trust in relation to the medical, electronics, and general industrial applications (Condition 2). In this study, collectively held concerns were supported far more often by knowledge-grounded reasons for concern, and these point to a collectively held cognition of past events in which “rushing to consumer without downstream knowledge” resulted in “breakthroughs with disastrous consequences.” This collectively held perception appears to hold industry and government responsible for failures to manage technology development knowledgeably and responsibly, so that public health interests are protected while mutual public–industry economic interests are also advanced. All studies have limits, and this one is no exception. Continuing research could be used to discover more about the social representation that appears to be present, for example. Learning more about the reasons for low trust in government, evoked by participants knowing more about nanotechnology’s emergence, would also be helpful. Still, the findings of this research point to a well-developed collective interest in nanoscience-derived benefits, and to a collective belief that the US public interest has not been well enough understood and protected. Policymakers might take this belief seriously, and consider ways to alleviate public concerns so that nanotechnology does not follow the history of past breakthroughs with damaging consequences. Acknowledgements The research discussed in this article was funded by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #0418066. Many thanks are owed to NSF reviewers and managers, as well as to the

238


scientists at the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Foresight Institute, and others who assisted with review of the briefing materials. Anonymous reviewers and colleagues including Susanna Priest and Michael Cobb made comments on earlier versions of this article that improved the text and enriched the discussion. Notes 1 Exit questionnaire 1. Have you read the novel, Prey or Swarm or have you talked about either with someone who has read one of these books? 1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Know someone who has 2. How much did you know about nanotechnology before participating? 1 = Almost nothing 2 = A little 3 = Quite a bit 4 = A great deal 3. Were you neutral, positive, or negative about nanotechnology before participating? 1 = Neutral 2 = Positive 3 = Negative 4. How much has your opinion about nanotechnology changed, if at all, as a result of participating in this discussion group and reading the briefing materials? 1 = None 2 = A little 3 = Quite a bit 4 = A great deal 5. Do you now feel neutral towards nanotechnology, or if your opinion has changed, has it changed positively or negatively? (for example, are you more concerned now or more enthusiastic?) 1 = I generally feel neutral 2 = I feel a bit more positive 3 = I feel a lot more positive 4 = I feel a bit more negative 5 = I feel a lot more negative 6. Which of the two statements below best expresses your present belief about nanotechnology? 1 = The benefits will probably exceed the risks and unintended consequences. 2 = The risks and unintended consequences will probably exceed the benefits. 7. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Even if there are risks with nanotechnology, government will effectively manage these risks.” 1 = Strongly agree 2 = Agree 3 = Disagree 4 = Strongly disagree 5 = Don’t know 8. In what industry do you work? (examples: health care, biotechnology, K-12 education, police, computer, government, etc.) _________________________________________ 9. What race or ethnicity do you identify with yourself? 1 = Hispanic or Latino 2 = African-American 3 = Asian-American 4 = Caucasian 5 = Something else _________________________________________ 10. Please tell me your age _________________________________________


239

11. Please tell me your gender. 1 = Male 2 = Female 12. What is the highest level of education that you completed? 1 = No high school degree 2 = High school degree/GED 3 = Attended some college 4 = Trade school degree 5 = Undergraduate college degree 6 = Some graduate training or graduate degree 13. In politics, people talk a lot about political ideology. Generally speaking, would you consider yourself to be a liberal, a conservative, a moderate, or something else? 1 = Liberal 2 = Conservative 3 = Moderate 4 = Something else _________________________________________ 14. Do you feel that the group leaders were biased towards, or biased against, nanotechnology, or relatively balanced? 1 = Relatively balanced in explaining risks and benefits 2 = Biased towards the benefits of nanotechnology 3 = Biased towards the risks of nanotechnology 15. Was the group as a whole biased towards, or biased against, nanotechnology, or relatively balanced? 1 = Relatively balanced 2 = Biased towards the benefits of nanotechnology 3 = Biased towards the risks of nanotechnology 2 Sources for examining developing applications and research discoveries include industry magazines such as SmallTimes, online at http://smalltimesmedia.com and Nanotechnology Now. Other sources regularly reporting nanoscience developments include Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com), Nature, PR Newswire, The Age, and The Scientist. A historical narrative of nanotechnology’s development is in Nano (Regis, 1995). 3 Whereas a topic is the substantive subject of a sentence, paragraph, or discussion, an “argument” is a more complex feature of communication, as well as a term with multiple uses and meanings (O’Keefe, 1977). In O’Keefe’s formulation, “argument1” is defined as a statement-level argument; “Jenny’s hair is red” is an example of argument1, a statement that makes an argument for or against something. “Argument2” locates a different sense of the term argument, where argument2 is a type of interaction between several parties, an interactive exchange including claims, counterclaims, rebuttals, etc. In yet another common meaning of the term argument, the “argumentative case” is a complex line of argument (Rieke and Sillars, 1997). A line of argument is a collection of premises put forward by one author, making a case for a particular conclusion.

References Bainbridge, W.S. (2002) “Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4: 561–70. Billig, M. (1993) “Studying the Thinking Society: Social Representations, Rhetoric, and Attitudes,” in G.M. Breakwell and D.V. Cantor (eds) Empirical Approaches to Social Representations, pp. 39–62. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Breakwell, G.M. and Cantor, D.V. (1993) Empirical Approaches to Social Representations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Burnstein, E. and Santis, K. (1981) “Attitude Polarization in Groups,” in R. Petty, T. Ostrom and T. Brock (eds) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion, pp. 197–215. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cegala, D.J., Dewhurst, M., Galanes, G., Burggraf, G., Thorpe, J.M., Keyton, J. and Makay, L. (1989) “A Study of Participants’ Judgments of Topic Change during Conversation: Global versus Local Definitions,” Communication Reports 2: 62–71. Cobb, M. and Macoubrie, J. (2004) “Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Trust,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research: An Interdisciplinary Forum for Nanoscale Science and Technology 6(4): 395–405. Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.

240


Deutsch, M., and Gerard, H. (1955) “A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences upon Individual Judgment,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51: 629–36. Drexler, K.E. (1990) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Fourth Estate. Drexler, K.E. (1992) Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Einseidel, E. and Thorne, B. (1999) “Public Responses to Uncertainty,” in S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C.L. Rogers (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Coverage of New and Controversial Science, pp. 43–57. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Review 14: 532–50. Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. (1993) Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. European Commission (2001) Eurobarometer 55.2: Europeans, Science and Technology. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Farr, R.M. and Moscovici, S. (1984) Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geist, P. and Chandler, T.S. (1984) “Account Analysis of Influence in Group Decision-making,” Communication Monographs 51: 67–78. Goven, J. (2003) “Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-problematization,” Public Understanding of Science 12: 423–40. Griffin, R.J., Neuwirth, K., Giese, J. and Dunwoody, S. (2002) “Linking the Heuristic-Systematic Model and Depth of Processing,” Communication Research 29: 705–32. Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J. and Speers, T. (2003) Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public, and the Media. London: Economic and Social Research Council. Hornig, S. (1992) “Framing Risk: Audience and Reader Factors,” Journalism Quarterly 69: 679–90. Huguet, P., Latane, B. and Bourgeois, M. (1998) “The Emergence of a Social Representation of Human Rights via Interpersonal Communication: Empirical Evidence for the Convergence of Two Theories,” European Journal of Social Psychology 28: 831–47. Kaplan, M.F. (1989) “Task, Situational, and Personal Determinants of Influence Processes in Group Decisionmaking,” Advances in Group Processes 6: 87–105. Kaplan, M.F. and Miller, L.E. (1987) “Group Decision Making and Normative versus Informational Influence: Effects of Type of Issue and Assigned Decision Rule,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 306–13. Kalven, H. and Zeisel, H. (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Krueger, R.A. (1994) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Macoubrie, J. (2002) “Logical Argument Structures in Decision-making,” Argumentation: An International Journal of Reasoning 17: 291–313. Miles, M. and Huberman, A.M. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Miller, J.D. (1998) “The Measurement of Scientific Literacy,” Public Understanding of Science 7: 203–23. Moscovici, S. (1984) “The Phenomena of Social Representations,” in R.M. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds) Social Representations, pp. 3–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moscovici, S. (2001) Social Representations. New York: New York University Press. O’Keefe, D.J. (1977) “Two Concepts of Argument,” Journal of the American Forensic Association 13: 121–8. Perelman, C. (1982) The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame, IL: University of Notre Dame Press. Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Priest, S.H. (1995) “Information Equity, Public Understanding of Science, and the Biotechnology Debate,” Journal of Communication 45: 39–54. Regis, E. (1995) Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology. Remaking the World Molecule by Molecule. Boston: Little, Brown. Reichmann, R. (1978) “Conversational Coherency,” Cognitive Science 2: 283–327. Reinhart, T. (1981) “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics,” Philosophica 27: 53–94. Rieke, R.D. and Sillars, M.O. (1997) Argumentation and Critical Decision Making, 4th edn. New York: Longman. Robins, R. (2001) “Overburdening Risk: Policy Frameworks and the Public Uptake of Gene Technology,” Public Understanding of Science 10: 19–36. Roco, M. (2003a) “Broader Societal Issues of Nanotechnology,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5: 181–9.


241

Roco, M. (2003b) “Nanotechnology: Convergence with Modern Biology and Medicine,” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14: 337–46. Rogers, C.L. (1999) “The Importance of Understanding Audiences,” in S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C.L. Rogers (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Coverage of New and Controversial Science, pp. 179–200. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schuler, E. (2004) “Perceptions of Risk and Nanotechnology,” in D. Baird, A. Nordmann and J. Schummer (eds) Discovering the Nanoscale, pp. 279–84. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell (2002) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Simon, H.A. (1976) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 3rd edn. New York: Free Press. Slovic, P. (1999) “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-assessment Battlefield,” Risk Analysis 19: 689–701. Tracy, K. (1982) “On Getting the Point: Distinguishing ‘Issues’ from ‘Events,’ an Aspect of Conversational Coherence,” in M. Burgoon (ed.) Communication Yearbook, pp. 279–301. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Tracy, K. (1983) “The Issue-Event Distinction: A Rule of Conversation and its Scope Condition,” Human Communication Research 9: 320–34. US Census Bureau (2000) URL: http://factfinder.census.gov. Wagner, W., Kronberger, N. and Seifert, F. (2002) “Collective Symbolic Coping with New Technology: Knowledge, Images, and Public Discourse,” British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 323–43. Walton, D. (1996) Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Yin, R.K. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Author Jane Macoubrie (Ph.D. University of Washington 1998) is Assistant Professor of Public and Personal Communication, North Carolina State University. Correspondence: North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8104, 204 Winston Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695-8104, USA, e-mail: [email protected]