Abstract
In this chapter, we provide an overview of an unprecedented body of new knowledge about the emergence of perceived risks and benefits of nanotechnologies and selected other new technologies through a set of linked studies. The chapter highlights the results of over a decade of mixed methods social science research at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California at Santa Barbara with reference to other key publications in the field. The chapter reviews research on: views, perceptions, values, and attitudes and social action among multiple stakeholders in the nanotechnology enterprise; development and refinement of innovative methods for public engagement with new technologies in the US and comparative other nations; experts’ risk knowledge and views on regulatory preparedness for safe handling of novel nanomaterials’ properties; and print and social media and policy attention focused on nanotech risks and benefits, particularly with reference to emergent public perceptions, risk amplification, or attenuation. In addition, the chapter details modes of dissemination of such societal knowledge to an array of critical stakeholders, including scientists and engineers developing these new materials and their enabled systems and products, nanotoxicologists who have been assessing the environmental and health risks presented by such novel materials, the international nanomaterials industry, policymakers/regulators, journalists, the diverse US public, and NGOs and civil society organizations (CSOs). Taken together, the portfolio of new knowledge produced, the methodological advancement evident in its production, and the transfer of knowledge accomplished through engagement with diverse multi-stakeholders are argued to constitute an unprecedented advancement of socio-technical integration. The research process has also generated for the first time a robust international community of socio-technical scholars and experts with the skills and experience to advance societal benefits and ethical governance of emerging technologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The purpose in this chapter is primarily to synthesize the contributions to the study of expert and public perceptions of nanotechnologies and nanotoxicologies by one large interdisciplinary, international team of risk perception researchers. Publications by others in the field are cited as appropriate but are not the main focus. For a complete cumulative list of the CNS-UCSB risk perception and social response group’s publications 2006–2016, please see www.cns.ucsb.edu
- 2.
Some collaborative work continues beyond the 2016 sunset of the CNS to the present. There was a very large body of data collected in the multiple studies conducted by the group, and data analysis and dissemination will continue for some time.
- 3.
Due to the large diversity of materials and applications encompassed by the term ‘nanotechnology’ we prefer in general to follow the recommendations in the UK Royal Society report on Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies (Royal Society 2004) and refer to them in the plural.
References
Alcoff L. Visible identities: race, gender and the self. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Barvosa E. Wealth of selves: multiple identities, mestiza consciousness, and the subject of politics. College Station: Texas A&M Press; 2008.
Bauer G. Incorporating intersectionalilty theory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to advance health equity. Soc Sci Med. 2014;110:10–7.
Beaudrie C. Emerging nanotechnologies and life cycle regulation: an investigation of federal regulatory oversight from nanomaterial production to end of life. Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation; 2010. p. 1–63.
Beaudrie C. From cradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: expert risk perceptions, decision-analysis, and life cycle regulation for emerging nanotechnologies. Doctoral thesis, University of British Columbia; 2013 . Available for download at: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0073597
Beaudrie C, Kandlikar M. Horses for courses: risk information and decision making in the regulation of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res Spec Focus Govern Nanobiotechnol. 2011;13(4):1477–88.
Beaudrie C, Kandlikar M, Ramachandran G. Using expert judgment for risk assessment. In: Ramachandran G, editor. Assessing nanoparticle risks to human health. Maryland Heights: Elsevier; 2011. p. 109–38.
Beaudrie C, Kandlikar M, Satterfield T. From cradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: gaps in US regulatory oversight along the nanomaterial life cycle. Environ Sci Technol. 2013a;47(11):5524–34.
Beaudrie C, Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Harthorn BH. Expert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies. PLoS One. 2013b:e80250.
Beaudrie C, Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Harthorn BH. Scientists versus regulators: precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterials. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e106365.
Beaudrie CH, Kandlikar M, Gregory R, Long G, Wilson T. Nanomaterial risk screening: a structured approach to aid decision making under uncertainty. Environ Syst Decis. 2015;35(1):88–109.
Bickerstaff K, Simmons P, Pidgeon NF. Constructing responsibility for risk(s): negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environ Plan A. 2008;40:1312–30.
Bierle TC, Cayford J. Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2002.
Bush J, Moffatt S, Dunn C. “Even the birds round here cough”: stigma, air pollution and health in Teeside. Health Place. 2001;7:47–56.
Butler C, Parkhill KA, Pidgeon NF. Nuclear power after Japan: the social dimensions. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev. 2011;53(6):3–14.
Casson R. Schemata in cognitive anthropology. Annu Rev Anthropol. 1983;12:429–62.
Chilvers J, Kearns M, editors. Remaking participation. London: Routledge; 2016.
Collins M, Copeland L, Harthorn BH, Satterfield T. Rating the risks: The non-white female effect; In preparation
Conti J, Killpack K, Gerritzen G, Huang L, Mircheva M, Delmas M, Appelbaum R, Harthorn BH, Holden P. Health and safety practices in the nanotechnology workplace: results from an international survey. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42(9):3155–262.
Conti J, Satterfield T, Harthorn BH. Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent US nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 2011;31(11):1734–48.
Corner A, Pidgeon N. Nanotechnologies and upstream public engagement: dilemmas, debates and prospects? In: Harthorn BH, Mohr J, editors. The social life of nanotechnology. New York: Routledge; 2012. p. 247–83.
Corner A, Satterfield T, Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH. Affective ambivalence & nanotechnologies. Presentation at the annual meetings of the society for risk analysis, 8 December. Salt Lake City, Utah, US; 2010.
Corner A, Parkhill K, Vaughan N. Messing with nature: exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob Environ Chang. 2013;23(5):938–47.
Corner A, Markowitz E, Pidgeon N. Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang. 2014;5(3):411–22.
Davidson D, Freudenburg WR. Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav. 1996;28:302–39.
Demski C. Public perceptions of renewable energy technologies: Challenging the notion of widespread support. Doctoral thesis, Cardiff University; 2011
Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill K, Spence A, Pidgeon N. Public values for energy system change. Glob Environ Chang. 2015;34:59–69.
Denes A, Cranfill R, Whirlow J, Hanna S, Shearer C, Rogers-Brown J, Harthorn BH. Gender, talk and group dynamics in nanotechnology public deliberation; In preparation.
Devine-Wright P. Reconsidering public attitudes and public acceptance of renewable energy technologies: a critical review. ESRC Working paper 1.4, Research Councils Energy Programme, School of Environment and development, University of Manchester, UK; 2007. Available on line at: http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/bn_wp1_4.pdf
Dietz T, Stern P, editors. Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008.
Engeman C, Harthorn BH. Mobilizing in the context of uncertainty: Social movement organizations and contentious issues of nanotechnology safety, governance and responsible development. Paper presented at the 1st annual environmental politics conference, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UCSB, May 31; 2013.
Engeman C, Baumgartner L, Carr B, Fish A, Meyerhofer J, Satterfield T, Holden P, Harthorn BH. Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices. J Nanopart Res. 2012;14(749):1–12.
Engeman C, Baumgartner L, Carr B, Fish A, Meyerhofer J, Satterfield T, Holden P, Harthorn BH. The hierarchy of environmental, health, and safety practices, in the US nanotechnology workplace. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2013;10(9):487–95.
Engeman C, Rogers-Brown J, Harthorn BH. Mobilizing in the context of uncertainty: social movement organizations and contentious issues of nanotechnology safety, governance, and responsible development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, session 161, Montreal, Quebec, Aug 13; 2017.
Erikson K. A new species of trouble: the human experience of modern disasters. New York: W. W. Norton & Co; 1994.
Fenstermaker S, West C. Doing gender, doing difference: inequality, power and institutional change. New York: Routledge; 2002.
Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield T. Gender, race, and perceived risk: the ‘white male’ effect. Health Risk Soc. 2000;2:159–72.
Fiorino D. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 1990;15(2):226–43.
Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 1994;14:1101–8.
Freudenburg W. Risk and recreancy: weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Soc Forces. 1993;71(4):909–32.
Friedman S, Egolf B. A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Anal. 2011;31(11):1701–17.
Friedman S, Egolf B. Perspective: what have the mass media been reporting on nanotechnology risks? In: Priest SH, editor. Nanotechnology and the public: risk perception and risk communication. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012. p. 157–65.
Gregory R, Satterfield T, Hasell A. Using decision pathway surveys to inform climate engineering policy choices. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(3):560–5.
Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Mayer S, Wynne B. Uncertain world: GMOs, food and public attitudes in Britain. Lancaster: CSEC and Unilever; 1997.
Guston DH, Sarewitz D. Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc. 2002;24:93–109.
Hagendijk R, Irwin A. Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva. 2006;44(2):167–84.
Han X, Engeman C, Appelbaum R, Harthorn BH. Democratizing technologies: assessing the roles of NGOs in shaping technological futures. Santa Barbara: Center for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California, Santa Barbara; 2015. Available for download at: http://www.cns.ucsb.edu/sites/www.cns.ucsb.edu/files/demtech/Democratizing%20Technologies%20Conference%20Report.pdf
Harthorn BH. Nanotechnology multi-stakeholder risk perception: implications for risk analysis, management, and communication. Invited keynote address (and web broadcast), 2013 NNI Risk 3 Stakeholder Workshop, Office of Science and Technology Policy/National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office, Washington, D.C., September 11, 2013.
Harthorn BH. Techno-benefits and social risks. In: Manderson L, Hardon A, Cartwright E, editors. The Routledge handbook of medical anthropology. London: Routledge; 2016. p. 329–37.
Harthorn BH. Nanotechnology. In: Turner BS, editor. The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of social theory. Wiley; 2017a.
Harthorn BH. Chapter 44 – Nanotechnologies in societal context. In: Bhushan B, editor. Springer handbook of nanotechnology. 4th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2017b.
Harthorn BH, Mohr JW, editors. The social life of nanotechnology. New York: Routledge; 2012a.
Harthorn BH, Mohr J. Introduction: the social scientific view of nanotechnologies. In: Harthorn BH, Mohr J, editors. The social life of nanotechnology. New York: Routledge; 2012b. p. 1–15.
Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers J. Gendered risk beliefs about emerging nanotechnologies in the US. Paper presented at the University of Washington Center for Workforce Development, Seattle, WA; 2009. Published online at: http://depts.washington.edu/ntethics/symposium/index.shtml
Harthorn BH, Satterfield T, Pitts A, D’Arcangelis G, DeVries L. Intuitive cognition in the perception of environmental media and nanomaterials: a study of US public views. Presented at the international conference on environmental implications of nanotechnologies, Duke University, May 9; 2011a.
Harthorn BH, Shearer C, Rogers J. Exploring ambivalence: techno-enthusiasm and skepticism in US nanotech deliberations. In: Zuelsdorf T, editor. Quantum engagements: social reflections of nanoscience and emerging technologies. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2011b. p. 75–89.
Harthorn BH, Rogers J, Shearer C, Martin T. Debating nanoethics: U.S. public perceptions of nanotechnology applications for energy and the environment. In: Scott D, Francis B, editors. Debating science: deliberation, values, and the common good. 2nd ed. New York: Prometheus Books; 2012. p. 227–49.
Harthorn B, Bryant K, Rogers-Brown J, Shearer C. Inequality, risk and difference in deliberations about new technologies; In preparation.
Harthorn B, Collins M, Satterfield T. Upstream ethics and nanotechnologies in the US; In preparation.
Harthorn BH, Halcomb L, Partridge T, Thomas M, Enders C, Pidgeon N. Health risk perception and shale development in the UK and US. Health Risk Soc. 2019;21(1–2):35–56.
Hasell A. Risk in social media: public perceptions of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK. Presented at the 2016 annual conference of the society for applied anthropology in Vancouver, BC, April 2016.
Hasell A, Hodges H What’s at risk? A comparison of public discussion of fracking risks in Twitter in the US & UK. Presented at society of risk analysis, Arlington, VA, December 2015.
Hess D, Breyman S, Campbell N, Martin B. Science, technology, and social movements. In: Hackett E, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J, editors. The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2008. p. 473–98.
Holden P, et al. Considerations of environmentally relevant test conditions for improved evaluation of ecological hazards of engineered nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(12):6124–45.
Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Rowe G, Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Murdock G, O’Riordan T. The GM debate: risk, politics and public engagement. London: Routledge; 2007.
Irwin A, Simmons P, Walker G. Faulty environments and risk reasoning: the local understanding of industrial hazards. Environ Plan A. 1999;31:1311–26.
Jae-Young C, Ramachandran G, Kandlikar M. The impact of toxicity testing costs on nanomaterial regulation. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(9):3030–4.
Kandlikar M, Ramachandran G, Maynard A, Murdock B, Toscano W. Health risk assessment for nanoparticles: a case for using expert judgment. J Nanopart Res. 2007;9(1):137–56.
Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX. The social amplification and attenuation of risk. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 1996;545:95–105.
Kurath M, Gisler P. Informing, involving or engaging: science communication in the ages of atom- bio- and nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci. 2009;21(4):447–64.
Leiserowitz A. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Chang. 2006;77:45–72.
Lively E, Conroy M, Weaver D, Bimber B. News media frame novel technologies in a familiar way: nanotechnology, applications, and progress. In: Harthorn BH, Mohr J, editors. The social life of nanotechnology. New York: Routledge; 2012. p. 223–40.
Macnaghten P. Animals in their nature: a case study of public attitudes on animals, genetic modification and ‘nature’. Sociology. 2004;38(3):533–51.
Macnaghten P. Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses, and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ Plan A. 2010;42(1):23–37.
Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman C. Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
Morton T. Hyperobjects: philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2013.
National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS). Nanomaterials and nanotechnology. https://www.nicnas.gov.au/chemical-information/Topics-of-interest2/subjects/nanomaterials-nanotechnology. Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
National Research Council. A matter of size: triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2006. https://doi.org/10.17226/11752.
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). 2019. https://www.nano.gov/about-nni. Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
OECD. Public attitudes to nuclear power. Nuclear Energy Agency, NEA No. 6859; 2010, p. 1–53. Available for download at: https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6859-public-attitudes.pdf
Owen R, Stilgoe J, Macnaghten P, Gorman M, Fisher E, Guston D. A framework for responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M, editors. Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. London: Wiley; 2013. p. 27–50.
Parkhill K, Demski C, Butler C, Spence A, Pidgeon N. Transforming the UK energy system: public values, attitudes and acceptability: synthesis report. London: UKERC; 2013a. p. 1–48.
Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Corner A, Vaughan N. Deliberation and responsible innovation: a geoengineering case study. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M, editors. Responsible innovation. London: Wiley; 2013b. p. 219–40.
Partridge T, Thomas M, Harthorn B-H, Pidgeon N, Hasell A, Stevenson L, Enders C. Seeing futures now: emergent US and UK views on shale development, climate change and energy systems. Glob Environ Chang. 2017;42:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.002.
Partridge T, Thomas M, Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH. Urgency in energy justice: contestation and time in prospective shale extraction in the United States and United Kingdom. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2018;42:138–46.
Partridge, T., Thomas, M., Pidgeon, N, & Harthorn, BH. Disturbed earth: conceptions of the deep underground in shale extraction deliberations in the US and UK. Environ Values. 2019;28(6):641–663
Pidgeon N. Normal accidents. Nature. 2011;477:404–5.
Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc Special Issue. 2007;9(2):191–210.
Pidgeon N, Kasperson R, Slovic P, editors. The social amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4(2):95–8.
Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Satterfield T. Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: emerging technologies, emerging challenges. Risk Anal (Special Issue). 2011a;31(11):1694–700.
Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Satterfield T, editors. Nanotechnologies risk perception and communication (special collection). Risk Anal. 2011b;31(11):1694–783.
Pidgeon N, Corner A, Parkhill K, Spence A, Butler C, Poortinga W. Exploring early responses to geoengineering. Phil Trans R Soc A. 2012;307(1974):4176–96.
Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A, Vaughan N. Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat Clim Chang. 2013;3(5):451–7.
Pidgeon N, Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill K, Spence A. Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(Suppl 4):13606–13.
Pidgeon N, Harthorn B, Satterfield T, Demski C. Cross-national comparative communication about the risks of nanotechnologies. In: Jamieson KH, Scheufele D, Kahan D, editors. Oxford handbook on the science of science communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 141–56.
REACH (European Commission Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals. 2019. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech/index_en.htm. Accessed 15 Mar 2019.
Rip A, Misa T, Schot JW, editors. Managing technology in society: the approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter Publishers; 1995.
Roco M, Harthorn BH, Guston D, Shapira P. Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. J Nanopart Res. 2011;13(9):3557–90.
Rogers J, Shearer C, Harthorn BH, Martin T. Different uses, different responses: exploring emergent cultural values through public deliberation. In: Harthorn BH, Mohr J, editors. The social life of nanotechnology. New York: Routledge; 2012. p. 195–222.
Rogers-Brown J, Shearer C, Harthorn BH. From biotech to nanotech: public debates about technological modification of food. Environ Soc Adv Res. 2011;2(1):149–69.
Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N. Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry. Public Underst Sci. 2008;16:345–64.
Rogers-Hayden T, Mohr A, Pidgeon N. Introduction: engaging with nanotechnologies – engaging differently? Nanoethics Special Issue. 2007;1(2):123–76.
Royal Society & the Royal Academy of Engineering. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society; 2004. Available for download at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2004/9693.pdf
Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie C, Conti J, Harthorn BH. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies: will they be like other controversial technologies? Nat Nanotechnol. 2009;4:752–8.
Satterfield T, Conti J, Harthorn BH, Pidgeon N, Pitts A. Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications for policy dialogues about emerging technologies. Sci Public Policy. 2012;40(2):247–60.
Satterfield T, Collins M, Harthorn B. Perceiving resilience: understanding people's intuitions about the qualities of air, water, and soil. Ecol Soc. 2018;23(4):47. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10637-230447.
Satterfield T, Collins M, Copeland L, Harthorn B. Bodily resilience as a new measure of intuitive toxicology; In preparation.
Satterfield T, Harthorn BH, Collins M, Pitts A. Resilience and intuitive cognition as predictors of the environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials; In preparation (a).
Satterfield T, Harthorn BH, Collins M. Comparative acceptability of specific nanotechnologies. In preparation (b).
Satterfield T, Findlater K, Harthorn BH. A quarter century of gender and racial stereotyping in the study of perceived environmental health risks. Under review
Shearer C, Rogers-Brown J, Bryant K, Cranfill R, Harthorn BH. Power and vulnerability: contextualizing “low risk” views of environmental and health hazards. In: Maret S, editor. William R. Freudenburg, A life in social research, Research in social problems and public policy, vol. 21. Bingley: Emerald Group; 2014. p. 235–57.
Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal. 1993;13(6):675–82.
Slovic P, editor. The perception of risk. London: Earthscan; 2000.
Slovic P, editor. The feeling of risk. London: Earthscan; 2010.
Stocking G, Hasell A. Twitter as a tool for public engagement with emergent technologies? Top poster presentation at the conference, Democratizing technologies: assessing the roles of NGOs in shaping technological futures conference, University of California, Santa Barbara, November 2014.
Stoetzler M, Yuval-Davis N. Standpoint theory, situated knowledge and the situated imagination. Fem Theory. 2002;3:315–33.
Thomas M, Partridge T, Harthorn B-H, Pidgeon NF. Deliberating the perceived risks, benefits, and societal implications of shale gas and oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing in the US and UK. Nature Energy 2, Published online 10 April, 17054; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.54.
Thomas G, Pidgeon NF, Roberts E. Ambivalence, naturalness and normality in public perceptions of carbon capture and storage in biomass, fossil energy, and industrial applications in the United Kingdom. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2018;46:1–9.
University of California Center for Environmental Implication of Nanotechnology (UCCEIN). http://www.cein.ucla.edu/new/. Accessed on 15 Mar 2019.
Weaver DA, Lively E, Bimber B. Searching for a frame: media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation in the case of nanotechnology. Sci Commun. 2009;31(2):139–66.
Wilsdon J, Willis R. See through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos; 2004.
Wynne B. Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci Technol Soc Int J. 2007;1:99–110.
Acknowledgements
Funding for the research in this chapter was provided by the US National Science Foundation through cooperative agreements #SES 0531184 and #SES 0938099 to the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at UCSB and #SES 0824042 and #SES 1535193 to first author Harthorn. Additional support was provided by NSF and EPA cooperative agreement #DBI 0830117 to the UC CEIN at UCLA. Additional funding was provided by the University of California at Santa Barbara. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or our other funders.
We would like to thank the anonymous public and expert participants in our research, the constructive critical contributions of a series of panels of NSF external reviewers of the CNS at UCSB, 2006–2016, the steady and often inspiring guidance of our primary NSF program officers and directors: Rochelle Hollander, Stephen Zehr, Michael Gorman, and Frederick Kronz, as well as Mihail Roco, without whom this research would very likely not have taken place. And the staff of the CNS at UCSB whose dedication and support have made this work possible, particularly Bonnie Molitor, Shawn Barcelona, Valerie Kuan, Brandon Fastman, Barbara Gilkes, and many others.
Our main faculty collaborators in this work are listed in full on the website at cns.ucsb.edu and have included: Edwina Barvosa, UCSB, Bruce Bimber, UCSB, Jennifer Earl, Univ of Arizona, Sharon Friedman, Lehigh Univ, William Freudenburg, UCSB (deceased), Robin Gregory, Decision Research, OR, Elizabeth Gwinn, UCSB, Patricia Holden, UCSB, Milind Kandlikar, Univ of British Columbia, CA, John Mohr, UCSB, and Paul Slovic, Decision Research, OR.
Students, postdocs and professional researchers we would like particularly to acknowledge include: Christian Beaudrie, Compass Resource Management, Canada; Karl Bryant, SUNY New Paltz, US; Mary Collins, SUNY ESF, US; Joseph Conti, Univ of Wisconsin-Madison, US; Adam Corner, Cardiff Univ., UK; Christina Demski, Cardiff Univ, UK; Brenda Egolf, Lehigh Univ, US; Cassandra Engeman, Stockholm Univ, Sweden; Darrick Evensen, Cardiff Univ., UK; Shannon Hanna, US Food and Drug Admin, US; Ariel Hasell, Univ of Michigan, US; Mikail Johansson, Gothenburg Research Institute, Sweden; Tristan Partridge, UCSB & Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain; Tee Rogers-Hayden, Univ of E. Anglia, UK; Louise Stevenson, Bowling Green State Univ, US; and Merryn Thomas, Cardiff Univ., UK.
We also thank editors Jamie R. Lead and Shareen Doak for their comments and suggestions for improving this text.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harthorn, B.H., Satterfield, T., Pidgeon, N. (2021). Nanotoxicology and Risk Perception among Public and Elite Groups. In: Lead, J.R., Doak, S.H., Clift, M.J. (eds) Nanotoxicology in Humans and the Environment. Molecular and Integrative Toxicology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79808-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79808-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-79807-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-79808-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)