COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TOWARDS EMERGING
TECHNOLOGY ISSUES - NANOTECHNOLOGY
PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY,
INNOVATION, SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TERTIARY
EDUCATION
ISRI PROJECT 12-025766-01
DATE: DECEMBER 2012
ADDRESS:
BUILDING 1, LEVEL 2,
658 CHURCH ST,
RICHMOND VIC 3121
Acknowledgements
The Ipsos Social Research Institute would like to thank the Department for their help and
assistance in the development of the project. We would also like to thank the members
of the public and the stakeholders who took part in this study without whose input, the
research would not have not been possible.
Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ 2
Section 1 Executive summary............................................................................. 5
Background
........................................................................................... 5
Methodology
........................................................................................... 6
Key findings
........................................................................................... 6
Attitudes toward science and technology .......................................................... 8
Attitudes to the world around us ...................................................................... 8
Awareness of nanotechnology and specific nanotechnology applications ............... 8
Attitudes towards nanotechnology and specific nanotechnology applications ......... 9
Attitudes relating to nanotechnology issues....................................................... 9
Concerns about nanotechnology ...................................................................... 9
Attitudes towards specific applications of nanotechnology ................................... 9
Attitudes towards regulatory bodies and key players .........................................10
Seeking information about new technologies ....................................................10
Implications
..........................................................................................11
Section 2 Research context .............................................................................. 11
2.1 Background to project ...........................................................................11
2.2 Research objectives ..............................................................................12
Section 3 Research design ............................................................................... 13
Overview of study .........................................................................................13
Questionnaire design phase – consultations and cognitive testing .......................13
Quantitative data collection ............................................................................13
Weighting
..........................................................................................14
Reporting of statistical testing ........................................................................15
Conduct of the segmentation .........................................................................15
Section 4 Respondent profile ........................................................................... 16
Section 5 Segmentation of attitudes ................................................................ 17
5.1 Segmentation overview .........................................................................17
5.2 Segmentation profiles ...........................................................................19
Section 6 ‘Predictors’ of attitudes .................................................................... 31
Section 7 Attitudes towards science & technology ........................................... 32
Attitudes towards how science and technology is changing society ......................32
Attitudes towards science and technology ........................................................33
Section 8 Attitudes to the world around us ...................................................... 37
Section 9 Awareness of nanotechnology & specific nanotechnology applications
................................................................................................. 39
9.1 Awareness of nanotechnology ................................................................40
9.2 Understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology .....................................42
9.3 Awareness of specific nanotechnology applications ....................................49
Section 10
Attitudes towards nanotechnology and specific nanotechnology
applications
................................................................................................. 53
10.1 General attitudes towards nanotechnology ...............................................53
10.2 Attitudes relating to nanotechnology issues ..............................................61
10.3 Examination of concerns about nanotechnology ........................................65
10.4 Attitudes towards specific applications of nanotechnology ..........................69
Section 11
Attitudes towards regulatory bodies and key players ............... 74
11.1 Perceptions of regulatory bodies .............................................................74
11.2 Trust in key groups ...............................................................................76
11.3 Perceptions of expertise of key groups ....................................................79
11.4 Importance of allocating budget resources to nanotechnology development
and regulation
..........................................................................................81
Section 12
Seeking information about new technologies ........................... 83
Potential sources of information......................................................................85
Section 13
Implications of the research ..................................................... 88
Appendices
................................................................................................. 89
Demographics
..........................................................................................89
Questionnaires ..........................................................................................95
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Section 1
Executive summary
Background
The Department and NETS PACE
The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
(DIISRTE) is a federal government department responsible for managing the National
Enabling Technology Strategy (NETS). The NETS plays a key role in Public Awareness
and Community Engagement (PACE) with relation to enabling technologies such as
nanotechnology in Australia.
What is nanotechnology?
Nanotechnology is the ability to manipulate matter at a molecular scale. Actual and
potential applications range from energy production to medicine, information
communication, agriculture and environmental preservation. For Australia, there are
clearly great economic and social benefits to be had from the judicious use of
nanotechnology. However, risks associated with the applications of nanotechnology
remain largely untested, and potentially detrimental impacts on human health and the
environment remain uncertain.
The need for research
Community attitudes are crucial to the development of the Australian nanotechnology
sector. If Australians are not in favour of a particular technological application,
research and development in this area will be constrained. In addition, public
attitudes help shape both industry uptake of emerging technologies and the
underlying regulatory framework for them.
It is clear then that if community attitudes are assumed, not measured, a host of
potential benefits in fields ranging from medicine to textiles are likely to be missed,
resulting in a lost opportunity for individuals, industry and the nation as a whole.
Over recent years, the Department has conducted a number of surveys canvassing
community attitudes towards nanotechnology. These studies have helped gauge the
state of Australian public awareness, identify knowledge gaps and track changes in
awareness and attitudes over time. This study is the latest of these investigations.
Specifically, the objectives of this study were to:

Explore current attitudes towards general science and technology;

Explore the public’s awareness and understanding of specific nanotechnology
issues;

Examine public attitudes towards nanotechnology including specific applications
and controllers of the technology; and

Explore differences in awareness, perceptions and attitudes according to key
demographic variables such as age, gender, location, education, etc.)
5
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Methodology
Questionnaire design phase – consultations and cognitive
testing
Stakeholder consultations were carried out to gather feedback from people involved in
different aspects of nanotechnology including representatives from industry,
government, peak bodies, scientists and social science practitioners to ensure that the
terms used throughout the questionnaire were still relevant and that the survey
covered any new and emerging issues.
Cognitive testing of the survey instrument was then undertaken with four members of
the public to test the logic and understanding of the terms used throughout the
survey. Feedback from both fed towards the development of the final survey
instrument.
Quantitative data collection
Two sets of quantitative data were collected – via computer aided telephone
interviews (CATI) and via an online survey (both n=1000 each). Both samples were
independent and, with the exception of a series of ‘core’ questions asked of both, the
surveys covered different topic areas.
The reason for utilising a mixed methodology approach was to ensure the study
covered a sufficient breadth of topic areas within budget and without being overly
burdensome for survey participants. The final telephone questionnaire averaged 19
minutes in duration while the online survey was 15 minutes in length.
A stratified sampling approach was applied to produce samples that were broadly
representative of the population by age, gender, and geographic location. Post
weighting was then applied to smooth the few remaining differences between the
sample and the age and gender profile of the 16-75 year old Australian population.
All fieldwork was undertaken between 15 October and 7 November inclusive.
Key findings
Segmentation
In order to investigate attitudinal groupings with regard to emerging technologies, a
segmentation was created. A cluster analysis of ratings to a series of statements
produced four distinct attitudinal groups. Two of the segments (Segments 1 and 2)
were less positive toward science and technology, while two segments were more
positive. Each segment is profiled in more detail below.
Segment 1
Segment 1 was the least enthusiastic about the benefits science and technology. They
had the highest agreement that ‘the pace of technological change is too fast to keep
up with’ and were the most likely to agree that ‘science and technology creates more
problems than it solves’, that ‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than
the poor’, and that ‘we rely too much on science and not enough on faith’.
6
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Compared to the other segments, Segment 1 had the lowest (though still relatively
high) opinion of the potential implications of nanotechnology, but also had the lowest
reported awareness of the term ‘nanotechnology’ with more than one in five (22%) of
this segment saying the ‘have not heard of it’. This segment had the highest
agreement that ‘people shouldn’t tamper with nature’, that ‘everything in the world is
connected’, and ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’.
Those in Segment 1 were more likely to be female, aged 51-75 and to speak
languages other than English at home.
Segment 2
This segment tended to be less positive towards the benefits of science and
technology generally and was more concerned, on average, with risks related to
nanotechnology. However, in contrast to Segment 1, they had relatively high
awareness of the term ‘nanotechnology’ and various nanotechnology applications. It
should be noted that even among this segment the majority felt that the benefits of
various applications of nanotechnology outweighed the risks – by a sizable margin;
however the ratio toward the positive was markedly smaller than that seen for
Segments 3 and 4.
Segment 2 was the least likely to agree that ‘human activities have a significant
impact on the planet’ (although agreement was relatively high overall with a mean
rating of above 8.3 out of 10). Notably, this segment was least likely to agree that
‘not vaccinating children put others at risk’ – although they were also less likely to
have children aged 10 and under at home.
Segment 3
Segment 3 was defined by relatively high (although not the highest) interest in
science and agreement that ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful
effects’. In relation to nanotechnology, this segment was the second most positive.
While awareness of nanotechnology was relatively high for Segment 3 they, like
Segment 1, had relatively low levels of self-reported knowledge.
Another factor making Segment 3 distinct was the highest agreement that ‘children
should be protected from all risks’. This group also had the greatest proportion of
children under 10 at home.
Segment 4
This group was the most positive towards science and technology. They expressed
greater agreement that ‘everyone should all take an interest in science’, that ‘new
technologies excite me more than they concern me’ and that ‘the benefits of science
are greater than any harmful effects’. Equally, there was disagreement that ‘science
and technology creates more problems than it solves’ and that ‘we depend too much
on science and not enough on faith’.
Segment 4 were the most likely to think that the benefits outweighed the risks for all
the specific applications of nanotechnology. Notably, Segment 4 that had the highest
proportion of respondents who believed they knew ‘what nanotechnology means and
how it works’.
7
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Attitudes toward science and technology
Attitudes towards how science and technology is changing society remain positive.
Males and those living in capital cities of Australia tended to be more positive than
females and those living outside of capital cities. Segments 1 and 2 tended to be
relatively less positive than Segments 3 and 4.
There was a strong agreement that ‘science is such a big part of our lives that we
should all take an interest’. There was also a high level of agreement with the
statements: ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’; and ‘the
benefits of science are greater than any harmful effects’.
Views were mixed towards statements relating to scientific advances ‘benefitting the
rich more than they benefit the poor’, ‘technological change happens too fast for me
to keep up with it’, and ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’.
In general, females and older participants were more cautious in their attitudes
towards advances in science and technology.
Attitudes to the world around us
Statements relating to the world around us saw less variation in response than was
seen for statements relating to attitudes about science and technology. The vast
majority of survey participants agreed strongly that ‘human activities have a
significant impact on the planet’, ‘not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ and ‘we
should use more natural ways of farming’.
There was some variation in responses by gender with females giving higher ratings,
on average, to statements related to valuing nature, or protecting the earth.
Awareness of nanotechnology and specific
nanotechnology applications
Awareness of the term nanotechnology remains high with the vast majority (87%) of
respondents having at least heard of the technology. Previous results show that there
has been a continual growth in awareness over time from just over half (51%) being
aware in 2005 to almost nine in ten (87%) in 2012. While awareness was high, there
was a relatively low level of underpinning knowledge with just over one in five (22%)
reporting that they ‘knew how it worked’.
When asked in what context they had heard about nanotechnology, respondents were
most likely to mention channels through which they had heard about the technology
including computing/the internet or through the media. Medical applications or
devices were the most common uses of nanotechnology mentioned.
Unprompted awareness of products that contain nanotechnology also increased
compared to 2011 with 36% reporting they knew of projects that contained or
included nanotechnology (compared to 29% in 2011). Sunscreen proved to be the
most commonly recalled item (17% of all respondents), followed by medical
instruments, creams/cosmetics/moisturisers, or computers (all 6%).
As to prompted awareness of nanotechnology applications, respondents were most
likely to say they had heard of new drug delivery systems through a patch on your
8
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
skin (56%), the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics (44%) and new
solar panels using nanotechnology (36%).
Attitudes towards nanotechnology and specific
nanotechnology applications
Attitudes towards nanotechnology were generally positive – survey participants rated
their positivity toward the potential applications of nanotechnology at 7.5 out of 10 on
average.
For the most part, survey participants felt that the benefits of nanotechnology
outweighed the risks. However, a substantial minority (47%) did not feel well enough
informed to say what the balance of risk was. There was a slight increase since the
last survey in the proportion who said the benefits outweighed the risks, however, the
most notable change was a decrease in the proportion stating that ‘the benefits are
equal to the risks’ and an increase in mention of ‘don’t know’. This shift is likely due
to a methodological change in 2012 which provided survey participants with ‘don’t
know’ as a valid response option.
Attitudes relating to nanotechnology issues
Respondents generally believed that nanotechnology would improve the future quality
of life in Australia and there was moderate agreement that there would be a positive
impact on employment and the economy.
There was widespread agreement that product labelling should provide information
about any nanotechnology used, with moderate agreement that it was important to
know what products contained nanotechnology. However, there may be a degree of
cognitive polyphasia (the ability to hold two contradictory opinions at once) at play
with few respondents saying they always read labels of products to see if a product
contains nanotechnology.
Concerns about nanotechnology
There was moderate agreement to the statements related to specific concerns about
nanotechnology. The statement with the highest average agreement was ‘because
nanotechnology is so new, there might be problems for public safety’. There was also
moderate agreement with the statement ‘I am concerned about the unexpected risks
of nanotechnology’.
Workplace safety was the area where respondents were least confident about giving a
rating, with markedly higher proportion selecting ‘don’t know’. Overall concerns
tended to be greater for females, those who spoke a language other than English at
home and Segment 1.
Attitudes towards specific applications of
nanotechnology
Among those who were aware of specific applications of nanotechnology, participants
were more likely to recall positive information. The application with the most positive
associated information was the use of new solar panels using nanotechnology, with
more than eight in ten of those aware of the technology recalling positive messages.
9
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
The use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics, and the use of nanoparticles to
improve the nutritional benefits of food were the applications where information
recalled was least positive. Even for these applications, positive messages were
recalled by a larger proportion than negative messages (43% recalling positive
messages for nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics compared to 17% recalling
negative messages).
Medical applications or applications with environmental benefits (such as clean water
or energy) were most likely to be associated with recall of positive messages.
Attitudes towards regulatory bodies and key players
Participants gave relatively low ratings, on average, when asked whether ‘the general
public is being kept well informed about nanotechnology’ (mean 3.4 out of 10). When
asked to rate the degree to which ‘nanotechnology regulation and safeguards are
keeping up with development of nanotechnology’ almost half of those surveyed could
not provide a response. Among those who did provide a response, the average mean
rating (out of 10) was 5.1 with responses concentrated toward the centre of the 10
point scale. Together, this indicates a large degree of uncertainty with relation to the
appropriateness of regulation and safeguards.
It is not surprising that the organisations most likely to be trusted to inform the public
about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology were science institutes and
organisations such CSIRO and universities, followed by scientists. Government
agencies and regulators rounded out the top three.
Survey participants were also asked to rate different groups in terms of their
expertise in informing the public about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology.
Again science institutes and scientist were the top of the list with a noticeable gap
between the top two and other organisations. Mass media were rated poorly (mean
3.0 out of 10).
Support was high for almost all forms of regulation and development tested in the
survey. Support was highest for ‘requiring testing of all products using
nanotechnology’ (mean 7.9 out of 10). There was only moderate agreement that
government agencies should ‘provide funding to private enterprises to develop
nanotechnology’ with a mean support rating of 5.9 out of 10.
Seeking information about new technologies
While half of survey participants (48%) said it was either ‘unlikely’ or ‘very unlikely’
that they would have looked for information about new technologies before the
survey, the process of asking questions about nanotechnology seemed to pique their
interest with eight in ten (81%) saying they were either ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to seek
information about new technologies in the future.
The internet was by far the most popular source of information on new technologies.
Among those who would use the internet, the most common method of sourcing
information was a ‘Google search’. Segment 4 respondents, those who were most
supportive of scientific advances, were notably more likely to cast a wide net to seek
information.
10
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Implications

While awareness of nanotechnology is high, there are relatively low levels of
underpinning knowledge. This lack of knowledge does not seem to have
translated into negative sentiment in the same was as has been seen for other
emerging technologies (for example genetically modified foods).

In terms of information channels that may influence opinion of emerging
technology, it is interesting to note the particularly low ratings of mass media
agencies.

Attitudes toward nanotechnology are generally positive, but there is also some
desire for additional information and appropriate product labelling. This stated
desire should be viewed in the context that a few survey participants say they
always read product labelling or have sought information on enabling
technologies in the past.

As segmentation analysis clearly shows, distinct attitudinal groupings exist
within the community each with differing appetites for information about science
and technology, and nanotechnology in particular. Consideration should be
given to developing a deeper understanding of these segments, their underlying
motivations, and the triggers that might move an individual to a higher level of
engagement.

Segment 4 appears to be made up of well informed advocates for science and
technology and specific biotechnological applications.

Males are consistently more positive with regard to biotechnology and specific
applications. While more research is required to understand the reasons for this
consideration should be given to developing gender tailored communication and
engagement strategies to reach women.
Section 2
2.1
Research context
Background to project
The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
(DIISRTE) is a Federal government department which is responsible for managing the
National Enabling Technology Strategy (NETS). Among other areas, NETS has a key
role to play in Public Awareness and Community Engagement related to enabling
technologies such as biotechnology and nanotechnology in Australia.
The growth of nanotechnology
Nanotechnology, or the ability to manipulate matter at a molecular scale, promises
radically to reshape the way we make and deploy materials. From energy production
to medicine, information communication, agriculture and environmental preservation,
the application of nanotechnology offers unprecedented opportunities to solve
11
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
economic, engineering and social problems.1 For Australia, there are clearly great
economic and social benefits to be had from the judicious use of nanotechnology.
However, risks associated with the applications of nanotechnology remain largely
untested, and potentially detrimental impacts on human health and the environment
remain uncertain.
Importance of community attitudes
Community attitudes are crucial to the development of the Australian nanotechnology
sector. If Australians are not in favour of certain technological applications, efforts by
scientists on R&D will be constricted. In addition, public attitudes help shape the
regulatory framework and the degree of industry uptake. If community attitudes are
assumed not measured, a host of potential benefits in fields ranging from medicine to
food to textiles are likely to be lost, representing a lost opportunity for individuals,
industry and the nation in general.
As to nanotechnology applications, in a paper entitled “Why Do We Need to Know
What the Public Thinks about Nanotechnology?” published in 2009, Dr Craig Cormick
articulated the case not only for increasing public awareness and understanding, but
also for conducting sophisticated and reliable research on public attitudes to inform
policy and product development.2 As suggested in Cormick’s article, an ongoing gap
between rapid technological development and application and the general public’s
understanding, needs and attitudes, may well carry the risk of a consumer backlash.
The need for research
Over recent years, the Department has conducted a number of surveys of community
attitudes towards nanotechnology. These studies have helped gauge the state of
Australian public awareness, identify knowledge gaps and track changes in awareness
and attitudes over time. This research commissioned by the Department sought to
revisit community attitudes towards emerging technology in particular
nanotechnology and its applications to monitor any changes in attitudes and
awareness. The research findings will be used to help the Department to develop
strategies to engage with the community on these issues including increasing public
awareness related to developments in emerging technologies.
2.2
Research objectives
Specifically, the research objectives will be to:

Explore current attitudes towards general science and technology;

Explore awareness and understanding of emerging technologies in general
(including nanotechnology and its applications);

Explore the public’s awareness and understanding of specific nanotechnology
issues;
DIISR website, accessed March 2012,
<http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Pages/default.aspx>
2
Nanoethics (online journal), Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 167-173. Available online at
<http://www.springerlink.com/content/6077809105834245>
1
12
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology

Explore attitudes towards nanotechnology including specific applications and
controllers of the technology; and

Explore differences in awareness, perceptions and attitudes according to key
demographic variables such as age, gender, location, education, income etc.).

Explore sources of information for science and technology issues; and

Explore attitudes and trust regarding science and technology regulators and
providers of information.
Section 3
Research design
Overview of study
To meet these objectives, a multi-stage quantitative-qualitative methodology was
undertaken, as illustrated in the following table:
Questionnaire
design and
testing
Quantitative
survey

4 industry/stakeholder
consultation sessions (13
participants in total)

Cognitive testing with members
of the public (4 interviews)

1000 - 19min CATI interviews

1000 – 15min online surveys
(covering biotechnology and
nanotechnology issues)
Ensure factual accuracy
Test survey constructs and terminology
Measure awareness, perceptions and
attitudes
Develop segmentation of community on
attitudes towards emerging technologies
Questionnaire design phase – consultations and
cognitive testing
Stakeholder consultations were carried out to gather feedback from people involved in
different aspects of nanotechnology including representatives from industry,
government, peak bodies, scientists and social science practitioners to ensure that the
terms used throughout the questionnaire were still relevant and that the survey
covers any new and emerging issues.
Cognitive testing of the survey instrument was also undertaken with 4 members of
the public to test the logic and understanding of the terms used throughout the
survey. The cognitive testing found it was important to provide respondents a ‘don’t
know’ option - particularly if they were not highly informed about technology issues.
Interviewers were briefed to let respondents know that ‘don’t know’ was a valid
answer. The cognitive testing also resulted in using more consistent scales within the
survey and simplification of the definitions used.
Feedback from both fed towards the development of the final survey instrument.
Quantitative data collection
Two sets of quantitative data were collected – via telephone (CATI) and via online
(both n=1000 each). While in the past, the telephone and online surveys contained
the same questionnaire in parallel. The purpose of the online survey was to
supplement the main telephone survey with additional questions that budget and time
13
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
constraints meant could not be covered over the phone. Both samples were
independent.
The telephone sample was recruited from randomly selected telephone numbers from
Sample Pages. In this iteration of the survey, with only 82% of Australian households
reporting they had a landline at home3, 20% of this survey’s sample was drawn from
mobile numbers to capture some of the views of mobile only households. The mobile
sample was stratified by location at the metropolitan and regional level.
The landline sample was stratified by location (nationally by state/territory and, within
these, by rural/regional/metropolitan areas) in such a way that the sample was in
proportion to the population. In addition, within each location stratum, broad age and
gender quotas were applied, again proportional to the population.
The questionnaire averaged 19 minutes in duration.
For the online survey, samples were sourced from an online panel, that is, individuals
who have opted to receive email invitations to participate in surveys from our
fieldwork subsidiary. Stratification and quota sampling of invitations to participate
occurred as per the telephone methodology.
The fieldwork was undertaken between 15 October and 7 November inclusive.
Weighting
A weighting scheme was created and applied to the entire sample to ensure the data
was representative of Australians aged 16-75. While at the overall level, the sample
was stratified for location, those aged under 30 were slightly underrepresented. Age
and gender quotas were not set for the mobile sample. The following table compares
the unweighted sample to the weighted sample to the overall population.
Table 1: Unweighted vs. weighted populations
Unweighted
Weighted
CATI
Online
CATI
Online
Male
51
49
50
50
Female
49
50
50
50
16-30 years
24
23
28
28
31-50 years
40
40
38
38
51-75 years
36
37
34
34
Gender
Age
Australian Communications and Media Authority, (2012), Convergence and
Communications - Report 1: Australian household consumers’ take-up and use of
voice communications services
3
14
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
With the exception of the demographics in the appendix, the research results
presented in this report are weighted to be representative of the Australians
aged 16-75 rather than just those who completed the survey.
Reporting of statistical testing
Tests of significance were conducted between key population characteristic such as
age, gender, employment status and metropolitan vs. regional locations. These were
conducted at the 95% level of confidence and are reported where appropriate.
A sample of n=1000 enables us to be 95% confident that at the overall level, a
feature of the population aged 16-75 we are testing is within a range of ±3.1% of
what the survey tells us. For example, this means that if we find that 50% of
respondents said they thought that GM crops were grown in their state, we can be
95% confident that between 53.1% and 46.9% of the population represented by the
sample actually did this.
A ‘significant difference’ means we can be 95% confident the difference observed
between the two samples reflects a true difference in the population of interest, and is
not a result of chance. Such descriptions are not value judgements on the importance
of the difference. The reader is encouraged to make a judgement as to whether the
differences are ‘meaningful’ or not.
Where significance testing has occurred between pairs such as male vs. female this
has been undertaken as an independent samples tests. However, where significance
testing has occurred between more than two categories within a group e.g.
employment status, the significance testing used, tests one category against the
average of the others that are not in that category combined. Such a test is ideal for
multiple comparisons as it reduces the likelihood of displaying a significant difference
where one does not exist. A false discovery test was also applied to the statistical
testing. A false discovery test is an estimate of the proportion of the cells shown as
being significant which will in fact be “false positives” (i.e. not reflective of differences
in the population).
Statistically significant differences within tables are displayed by green (9) and red
figures/arrows (2). Green figures indicate the figure reported is statistically higher;
red indicate the figure is statistically lower.
Where the scale and question wording have allowed, comparisons have been
made to the equivalent survey conducted in 2010.
Only significant differences have been reported throughout this document.
Conduct of the segmentation
A segmentation of CATI respondents was conducted using the bank of 14 statements
relating to values, beliefs and attitudes towards science and technology in general as
well as the world around us.
The method used to categorise participants into segments was the non-hierarchical
method called K-means (K-means works better on large sample and seeks clouds of
points/participants within the continuum of all attitudes measured). The segments
were identified using standardized ratings rather than actual ratings to limit the effect
15
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
of how participants used the range of values on the scale on to the definition of
segments.
The number of segments was selected on the basis of:

The change in sum of squares as the number of segments increases.

The internal consistency of the segments (no conflicting attitudes, at least one
specific attitude for each identified segment).
A linear discriminant analysis was then conducted to then categorise the online
respondents into the four existing segments based on the pattern of their responses
to the same statements.
Section 4
Respondent profile
The following table provides an overview of the key characteristics of the
respondents to the survey. After weighting for age and gender, between the
two methods there were still some slight differences in terms of employment
status with a higher proportion of those responsible for home duties among
the online respondents (5% vs. 11%). Correspondingly we had a higher
share of people with children under 10 at home (28% vs. 24%). A higher
proportion of students took part in the telephone survey than in the online
survey (16% vs. 8%).
Table 2. Key demographic characteristics
Telephone
survey
Online
survey
n=1000
n=1000
Male
50
50
Female
50
50
16-30 years
28
28
31-50 years
38
38
51-75 years
34
34
Employed (FT/PT/Self)
58
55
Retired or Pensioner
18
18
Home duties
5
11
16
8
3
5
Yes
24
28
No
76
72
Language other than English
at home
Yes
13
11
No
87
89
Capital or non-capital city
Capital city
67
67
Gender
Age
Employment status
Student
Unemployed
Children under 10 at home
16
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Telephone
survey
Online
survey
n=1000
n=1000
33
33
Non capital city
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Section 5
5.1
Segmentation of attitudes
Segmentation overview
As with recent surveys, attitudes towards nanotechnology have remained positive. In
the 2012 survey, a series of statements relating to science and technology and the
world around us were included to investigate whether groupings exist in the
community regarding attitudes towards emerging technologies. An attitudinal
segmentation a cluster analysis of these statements was conducted. The statements
included in the segmentation were:

Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it

Science and technology creates more problems than it solves

We depend too much on science and not enough on faith

New technologies excite me more than they concern me

Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest

The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect

Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor

We should use more natural ways of farming

People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

Human activities have a significant impact on the planet

People shouldn’t tamper with nature

I believe that everything in the world is connected

Not vaccinating children puts others at risk

Children must be protected from all risks
The order of which the statements were presented to respondents was randomised
and respondents were asked the degree to which they agreed or disagreed to each.
Further details of how the segmentation was conducted has been included in Section
3 - Research Design.
17
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
The segmentation analysis resulted in four segments. The results from the CATI
survey form the basis of the findings from the segmentation. However, there was
little difference in the distribution of the segments across the telephone and online
data collection modes.
Figure 1: Distribution of Segments
Weighted; Base (CATI) n =1000; Base (CATI) n =989
Note: Does not include n=11 that were not able to be classified in the statements due to a lack of
variability in their responses.
The following section outlines in brief, the characteristics that define each segment.
This is followed by a detailed discussion of each segment including differences in
attitudes and demographic characteristics.
Note on understanding segment variations.
It is important to note when looking at the following segmentation results that, while
a particular segment may be more likely or less likely to have agreed or disagreed
with a particular statement, this would be compared to the average (mean) response
for all the other segments combined - thus comparing for example Segment 1 to
those not in that segment. It should also be noted that this mean value may be quite
high overall. Therefore, even if a segment is the ‘least’ likely to agree with a particular
statement, their response may still be quite high but lowest relative to the other
scores, as the example below shows:
18
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 2. Example of variation of attitudes among segments
5.2
Segmentation profiles
Overall
The segmentation categorised participants into four distinct groups based on their
attitudes towards science and technology and the world around us. Two of the
segments (Segment 3 and Segment 4) were found to be more positive towards
science in general with Segment 4, the more ‘pro-science’ of the two. Segment 1 and
2 showed relatively lower support towards science and technology.
Table 3 and Table 4 show the variability of the ratings provided for each attitudinal
statement that was included in the segmentation analysis. Table 5 shows the
demographic differences that were apparent between the segments.
Table 3 shows that the statements regarding science and technology where there was
the greatest variance between segments were:

We depend too much on science and not enough on faith.

Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it.

Science and technology creates more problems than it solves.

Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor.
19
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Of the statements relating to the world around us the variance in ratings were
greatest for:

Children must be protected from all risks; and

People shouldn’t tamper with nature.
Table 3: Attitudes towards science and technology by segment
Average out of 10 (Disagree/agree
scale)
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=214
n=225
n=250
n=168
n=947
Science is such a big part of our lives
that we should all take an interest
7.5
7.3
8.1
8.7
7.9
New technologies excite me more than
they concern me
5.6
6.3
7.3
8.2
6.7
The benefits of science are greater than
any harmful effect
5.7
5.3
6.3
7.1
6.0
Scientific advances tend to benefit the
rich more than they benefit the poor
7.2
5.0
4.8
3.1
5.2
Technological change happens too fast
for me to keep up with it
7.6
5.0
5.3
2.7
5.4
We depend too much on science and not
enough on faith
6.9
4.3
4.1
1.2
4.4
Science and technology creates more
problems than it solves
6.1
3.9
3.4
1.5
3.9
Q1c For the following statements, can you please tell me how much you disagree or agree on a scale of 0
to 10, where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree. If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.
Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responses
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Table 4: Attitudes towards the world around us by segment
Average out of 10 (Disagree/agree
scale)
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=230
n=223
n=256
n=153
n=935
Human activities have a significant
impact on the planet
8.8
8.3
8.6
8.4
8.5
Not vaccinating children puts others at
risk
8.2
7.0
8.3
8.9
8.0
We should use more natural ways of
farming
8.7
7.5
7.9
5.9
7.6
I believe that everything in the world is
connected
8.1
7.1
7.4
6.8
7.4
Children must be protected from all
risks
8.2
3.7
8.8
4.7
6.6
People shouldn’t tamper with nature
8.4
5.9
6.3
3.6
6.3
20
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Average out of 10 (Disagree/agree
scale)
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=230
n=223
n=256
n=153
n=935
4.2
4.3
4.7
5.5
4.6
People have the right to modify the
natural environment to suit their needs
Q1c For the following statements, can you please tell me how much you disagree or agree on a scale of 0
to 10, where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree. If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.
Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responses
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Table 5. Segments’ key demographic characteristics
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=272
n=256
n=296
n=176
n=1000
Male
37
48
51
70
50
Female
63
52
49
30
50
16-30 years
22
32
29
28
28
31-50 years
35
35
39
46
38
51-75 years
43
33
32
25
34
Employed
(FT/PT/Self)
50
56
60
67
58
Retired or Pensioner
25
14
16
13
18
7
4
5
1
5
13
21
16
15
16
3
3
3
2
3
Yes
25
20
27
23
24
No
75
80
73
77
76
Language other than English
at home
Yes
17
9
18
6
13
No
83
91
82
94
87
Capital or non-capital city
Capital city
62
68
67
72
67
Non capital city
38
32
33
28
33
Gender
Age
Employment status
Home duties
Student
Unemployed
Children under 10 at home
Note: Excludes n=11 that were not able to be classified in the statements due to a lack of variability in
their responses.
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
It is clear there were two segments that were less positive towards science (Segment
1 and 2) and two segments that were relatively more positive about science and
technology (Segment 3 and 4) and this is reflected in their attitudes towards the
future implications of nanotechnology specifically. Figure 2 shows the degree to how
positive or negative each segment felt about the implications of nanotechnology. On
the whole, it could be said that all segments viewed the implications of
21
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
nanotechnology positively. However, in line with sentiments towards science, on a
scale of 0 to 10 where 0 was extremely negative and 10 was extremely positive,
Segment 3 and 4 provided the highest average scores on how they felt about the
future implications of nanotechnology (7.8 and 8.4 out of 10 respectively). Segment 1
provided the lowest average score (6.9 out of 10) but only slightly lower than the
average score for Segment 2 (7.1).
Figure 2: Attitudes towards potential implications of nanotechnology by
segment
Q12a How positive or negative would you say you were towards the potential implications of
nanotechnology?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 953; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude don’t know responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Further investigation showed that where the segments differed markedly was in terms
of their awareness of nanotechnology, as well as the perceptions of risks vs. benefits
of nanotechnology – although these were not included in the segmentation. That it is
these key measures that help further define the profile of each of the segments,
particularly how the pairs differed from each other.
22
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 3: Reported awareness and knowledge of nanotechnology by segment
Q3i How much would you say you personally know about “nanotechnology”?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 1000
Figure 4: Risks vs. benefits of nanotechnology by segment
Q14 On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks are
equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the risks?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 1000
Apart from an underlying difference in opinions in relation to the degree to which they
support and are comfortable with science and technology advancements and feelings
about the world around us, it is clear that perceptions of risks vs. benefits and
support for nanotechnology could be affected by how much a person feels they know
about the topic. Putting these factors together with the attitudinal segmentation helps
provide a clearer picture of each of the segments.
A detailed discussion of each of the segments incorporating the above results follows.
23
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
5.2.1
Segmentation in detail
Segment 1
In summary:
Segment 1 was the least enthusiastic compared to other segments about the
benefits science and technology including most likely to feel that science and
technology creates more problems than it solves, that scientific advances
tend to benefit the rich more than the poor, and we rely too much on science
and not enough on faith. Compared to the other segments, Segment 1 had
the lowest opinion on the future implications of nanotechnology, but also
had the lowest reported awareness of nanotechnology. Paired with the
highest agreement that technological change happens too fast for me to
keep up with it, helps to explain why this segment may be more conservative
than the other segments in their attitudes towards science and technology
and why a higher proportion of respondents could not say whether the
benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risks. This segment had a the
highest agreement that we shouldn’t tamper with nature, that everything in
the world is connected, and we should use more natural ways of farming –
suggesting that there is that feeling that perhaps ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it’. Segment 1 included a comparatively higher proportion of females, those
aged 51-75 and those who spoke languages other than English at home.
Attitudes towards science and technology
The defining factors of Segment 1 was high agreement to the statements that
‘technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’ (average of 7.6 out
of 10) and ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (6.9 out of 10).
They also had the lowest agreement that ‘science is such a big part of our lives that
we should all take an interest’ (7.5 out of 10) and ‘new technologies excite me more
than they concern me’ (5.6 out of 10) (See Table 3).
In addition to the above, a negative attitude towards science was reflected in
relatively higher agreement with statements including ‘scientific advances tend to
benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (7.2 out of 10), and ‘science and
technology creates more problems than it solves’ (6.1 out of 10).
Attitudes towards the world around us
As shown in Table 4, Segment 1 were the most likely of the segments to agree that
‘human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (8.8 out of 10) and ‘I
believe that everything in the world is connected’ (8.1). They were the least likely to
agree that ‘people have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their
needs’ (4.2 out of 10).
Agreement was also highest in Segment 1 for: ‘we should use more natural ways of
farming’ (8.7); ‘people shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (8.4) suggesting that there is
almost a ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ mentality to this segment.
The strongest agreement that ‘children must be protected from all risks’ (8.2) also
came from Segment 1 respondents.
24
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Perceptions and awareness of nanotechnology
Segment 1 rated their feeling about the potential implications of nanotechnology 6.9
out of 10. This was the lowest average score of the segments but only slightly lower
than that of Segment 2 (7.1 out of 10).
We find there was a significantly lower level of awareness of nanotechnology among
Segment 1 members - 74% reporting they had heard of it. This includes only 5% who
knew what it was and how it worked. This tells us that for Segment 1, the attitude
towards science and technology may be more conservative due in part to a ‘fear of
the unknown’ compared to the attitudes of Segment 2.
Notably, Segment 1 also had, by far, the lowest proportion of respondents saying the
benefits outweighed the risks (26%). However, it also had a significantly higher share
of respondents who could not say whether the risks outweighed the benefits or vice
versa (38%). This is consistent with other findings for Segment 1, where they are less
apt to judge because they feel they do not know enough about the topic to form a
firm opinion.
Demographic characteristics
Compared to other segments, there was a skew towards female respondents (63%),
and those who were aged 51-75 (43%). As a result, the proportion of those employed
tended to be lower (50%) with pensioners making up 25% of the sample. Although a
small component of the sample overall, there was a higher proportion of those
responsible of home duties in Segment 1 (7%).
Thirty-eight percent of Segment 1 resided outside the capital city of their
State/Territory.
Table 6. Segment 1 - key demographic characteristics
Segment 1
n=272
Gender
Age
Employment status
Male
37
Female
63
16-30 years
22
31-50 years
35
51-75 years
43
Employed (FT/PT/Self)
50
Retired or Pensioner
25
Home duties
Student
Unemployed
7
13
3
Children under 10 at
home
Yes
25
No
75
Language other than
Yes
17
25
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Segment 1
n=272
English at home
No
83
Capital or non-capital
city
Capital city
37
Non capital city
63
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population
Segment 2
Segment 2 tended to less positive towards the benefits of science and
technology with the lowest agreement that the benefits of science are
greater than any harmful effect of the four segments. In turn, they were less
positive than the other segments about nanotechnology specifically. Yet,
they still had a relatively high level of awareness of nanotechnology
(contrasting with Segment 1) and on balance they felt the benefits of
nanotechnology outweighed the risk (but not as much as Segments 3 and 4).
They were least likely to think that human activities have a significant
impact on the planet (although agreement was relatively high for all
segments) and were less likely than others to feel everything in the world
was connected. Notably, they had the lowest agreement that children should
be protected from all risks and were most likely to feel that not vaccinating
children did not put others at risk.
Attitudes towards science and technology
As seen in Table 3, on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 was strongly disagree and 10 was
strongly agree, we found that Segment 2 was the least likely of the segments to
agree that that ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’ (5.3 out
of 10) and ‘science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest’
(averaging 7.3 out of 10).
They were also second lowest in terms of agreement that ‘new technologies excite me
more than they concern me’ (6.3 out of 10).
On the other hand, they were significantly less likely to agree than those not in that
segment that ‘technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’ (5.0
out of 10).
Attitudes towards the world around us
While agreement across the board was high (8.5 out of 10), Segment 2 was the least
likely to agree that ‘human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (8.3) or
that ‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (7.1 out of 10) (See Table 4).
They were second lowest in terms of believing ‘people shouldn’t tamper with nature’
(5.9 out of 10). Segment 2 was also less likely to agree that ‘people have the right to
modify the natural environment to suit their needs’ (4.3 out of 10).
The key difference to other segments was their degree of disagreement with the
statement that ‘children must be protected from all risks’ (3.7 out of 10). They were
also least likely to agree that ‘not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ (7.0 out of
10).
26
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Perceptions and awareness of nanotechnology
Segment 2 provided the second lowest rating of their thoughts on the potential
implications of nanotechnology (7.1 out of 10), only just higher than that of Segment
1 (6.9 out of 10).
On balance, Segment 2 were more likely to think that the benefits of nanotechnology
outweighed the risk (49%) however this was second lowest of the four segments.
Similarly, they were second lowest in terms of how positive or negative they felt
about the future implications of nanotechnology (although the average was 7.1 out of
10).
For Segment 2, we find that there was a high level of reported awareness of
nanotechnology – on par with that exhibited by Segment 3 (one of the more positive
segments). The vast majority of this segment had heard of the term (93%) including
25% who knew what nanotechnology was and how it worked.
Demographic characteristics
Demographic differences between Segment 2 and other respondents included a
higher proportion of students (21%), and a comparatively lower number of those who
spoke a language other than English at home (9%).
Table 7. Segment 2 - key demographic characteristics
Segment 2
n=256
Gender
Age
Employment status
Male
48
Female
52
16-30 years
32
31-50 years
35
51-75 years
33
Employed (FT/PT/Self)
56
Retired or Pensioner
14
Home duties
Student
Unemployed
4
21
3
Children under 10 at
home
Yes
20
No
80
Language other than
English at home
Yes
9
No
91
Capital or non-capital
city
Capital city
68
Non capital city
32
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population
27
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Segment 3
In summary:
Segment 3 was defined by a high (although not the highest) agreement that
new technologies excite me more than they concern them and that the
benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect. As such, in terms of
nanotechnology, they were second most positive about its future
implications. There was a high level of awareness, but this consisted mostly
of those who were aware but did not know much about nanotechnology.
What also stood Segment 3 apart was that they had the highest agreement
that children should be protected from all risks. Using more natural ways of
farming was more favoured by this group than those who were not in the
segment.
Attitudes towards science and technology
Compared to other segments, there was a strong level of agreement that ‘science is
such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest’ (8.1 out of 10) – this
was the second highest rating of the four segments.
Segment 3 were also second highest in terms of agreement with the statements:
‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (7.3 out of 10); and ‘the
benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’ (6.3).
As to the negative aspects of science and technology, they provided significantly
lower agreement with ‘science and technology creates more problems than it solves
(3.4 out of 10), ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (4.1); and
‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (4.8 out
of 10) – all of which were second to lowest out of the segments.
Attitudes towards the world around us
A differentiating factor of this segment was their strong belief that children must be
protected from all risks (8.8 out of 10 – highest of the four segments).
They were also second highest in terms of agreement with the statement that we
should use more natural ways of farming (7.9 out of 10).
Perceptions and awareness of nanotechnology
On average, when asked how positive or negative they felt about the implications of
nanotechnology, the average score for Segment 3 was 7.8 out of 10. More than half
of Segment 3 also felt the benefits outweigh the risk (56%). Both results were second
highest of the four segments.
In terms of awareness and knowledge, for Segment 3, while there was a high level of
awareness overall, the majority of those who were aware of nanotechnology had
heard of it but knew little or nothing about it (71% of Segment 3). This compares
with Segment 4 (the most positive in their attitudes towards science) where a higher
proportion reported they had heard of nanotechnology and knew how it worked.
28
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Demographic characteristics
Of note, there was a higher proportion of those who spoke a language other than
English at home compared to the other segments.
Table 8. Segment 3 - key demographic characteristics
Segment 3
n=296
Gender
Age
Employment status
Male
51
Female
49
16-30 years
29
31-50 years
39
51-75 years
32
Employed (FT/PT/Self)
60
Retired or Pensioner
16
Home duties
Student
Unemployed
5
16
3
Children under 10 at
home
Yes
27
No
73
Language other than
English at home
Yes
18
No
82
Capital or non-capital
city
Capital city
67
Non capital city
33
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population
Segment 4
In summary:
The most positive towards science and technology was Segment 4 for whom
there was a greater belief that we should all take an interest in science, that
new technologies excited more than concerned and that the benefits of
science are greater than any harmful effects. Equally, there was
disagreement that science and technology creates more problems than it
solves and that we depend too much on science and not enough on faith.
They were most likely to think that the benefits outweighed the risks and
were the most positive about the implications of nanotechnology. Segment 4
also had the highest proportion of respondents who said they knew what
nanotechnology was and how it worked.
Attitudes towards science and technology
29
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Segment 4 was defined by strong agreement with ‘pro-science’ type statements –
with averages notably higher than that presented by Segment 3. They were the most
likely to agree that ‘science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an
interest’ (average of 8.7 out of 10); ‘new technologies excite me more than they
concern me’ (8.2 out of 10); and ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful
effect’ (7.1).
This was coupled by strong disagreement with statements such as ‘we depend too
much on science and not enough on faith’ (1.2 out of 10); and ‘science and
technology creates more problems than it solves’ (1.5) – both results were the lowest
for these statements.
In addition, they were the least likely to agree that ‘scientific advances tend to benefit
the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (2.7 out of 10); and ‘technological change
happens too fast for me to keep up with it’
Attitudes towards the world around us
Compared to other segments, Segment 4 was the most likely to say that ‘not
vaccinating children puts others at risk’ (an average of 8.9 out of 10).
Although agreement was moderate across the board, they were also most likely to
agree that ‘people have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their
needs’ (5.5). Connected to this was the lowest agreement that ‘people shouldn’t
tamper with nature’ (3.6).
Statements where Segment 4 was the least likely to agree included: ‘children must be
protected from all risks’ (4.7); ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’ (4.7).
Segment 4 was also the least likely to say that they ‘believe that everything in the
world is connected’ (5.9).
Demographic characteristics
Compared to the other segments, there was a higher proportion of males in Segment
4 (70%). Close to half (46%) of respondents in this segment was aged 31-50 with a
smaller proportion aged 51-75 (25%).
This segment was more likely to be employed than the other segments combined and
less likely to be conducting home duties.
Segment 4 also had a smaller share of people who spoke a language other than
English at home than other segments (6%).
Close to three-quarters resided in capital cities around Australia (72%).
Table 9. Segments by key demographic characteristics
Segment 3
n=176
Gender
Male
70
Female
30
30
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Segment 3
n=176
Age
Employment status
16-30 years
28
31-50 years
46
51-75 years
25
Employed (FT/PT/Self)
67
Retired or Pensioner
13
Home duties
1
Student
15
Unemployed
2
Children under 10 at
home
Yes
23
No
77
Language other than
English at home
Yes
6
No
94
Capital or non-capital
city
Capital city
72
Non capital city
28
Note: Excludes n=11 that were not able to be classified in the statements due to a lack of variability in
their responses.
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population
Section 6
‘Predictors’ of attitudes
Throughout this report there were consistent trends where groups within the sample
felt more positively or less positively about science and technology as well as
nanotechnology specifically.
The table below shows some of the groups where this occurred.
More likely to be supportive of nanotechnology
Less likely to be supportive of nanotechnology
Gender:
Male
Female
Age:
16-30 years
51-75 years
Awareness and knowledge of nanotechnology:
Have heard about nanotechnology
Have not heard of nanotechnology
Know what it is and how it works
Employment status:
Employed
Home duties
Student
Retired/Pensioner
Segments:
31
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
More likely to be supportive of nanotechnology
Less likely to be supportive of nanotechnology
Segment 3 and Segment 4
Segment 1 and Segment 2
Attitudes:
Higher agreement with:
Higher agreement with:
Science is such a big part of our lives that we should
all take an interest
Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more
than they benefit the poor
New technologies excite me more than they concern
me
Technological change happens too fast for me to
keep up with it
Not vaccinating children puts others at risk
We should use more natural ways of farming
People shouldn’t tamper with nature
Section 7
Attitudes towards science &
technology
In summary, attitudes towards how science and technology is changing
society remain positive. Males and those living in within capital cities of
Australia tended to be more positive than females and those living outside of
capital cities. Consistent with other findings, Segments 1 and 2 tended to be
relatively less positive than Segments 3 and 4.
There was a strong agreement that science is such a big part of our lives that
we should all take an interest. There was also a high level of agreement that
new technologies excite more than concern respondents, and that the
benefits of science are greater than any harmful effects. Where there were
more mixed views were to statements relating to scientific advances
benefitting the rich more than they benefit the poor, technological change
happening too fast to keep up with it, and depending too much on science
and not enough on faith. In general, females were often more cautious in
their attitudes towards advances in science and technology than males. Age,
employment status and whether someone spoke a language other than
English at home and location were also aspects where attitudes differed.
Attitudes towards how science and technology is
changing society
Respondents were asked to rate how they felt about the way science and technology
is changing society on a scale of 0 through to 10, where 0 meant ‘extremely negative’
and 10 meant ‘extremely positive’. As shown in Figure 5, the majority of respondents
felt quite positively, with almost three quarters (73%) providing a rating of 7-10, with
a mean response of 7.2 out of 10.
32
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 5. Attitudes towards the way science and technology is changing
society
Q1i How would you say you feel about how science and technology is changing society? 0-10 extremely
negative to extremely positive scale. 2012 Only, CATI Only, Base n = 955; Total n = 1000
While this question was asked with different wording and a different scale in 2011,
the generally positive sentiment towards science and technology among the
community has remained consistent (82% in 2011 stated that they felt ‘strongly
positive’ or ‘tend to positive’).
A few demographic differences emerged in regards to this measure. Males (77%
providing a rating of 7-10 compared to 69% among females) and people living in
capital cities (75% providing a rating of 7-10 compared to 68% among those living
outside capital cities) were significantly more likely to provide a positive response.
Consistent with the sentiment of each of the segments, Segment 1 and 2 provided
significantly lower ratings about how they felt about science and technology is
changing society and Segment 3 and 4 provided significantly more positive ratings
(See Table 10).
Table 10: Attitudes towards the way science and technology is changing
society by segment
Average out of 10 (0-10 Extremely
negative to extremely positive
scale)
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
1
Segment
2
Total
n=253
n=247
n=282
n=173
n=955
6.4
6.9
7.7
8.4
7.2
How would you say you feel about how
science and technology is changing
society
Q1i How would you say you feel about how science and technology is changing society
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 955; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Attitudes towards science and technology
Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with a range of attitudinal
statements about science and technology on a scale of 0-10, where 0 was ‘strongly
33
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
disagree’ and 10 was ‘strongly agree’. As detailed in Figure 6, overall attitudes
towards technological and scientific advances were relatively positive although there
were some statements that clearly divided respondents more than others. While the
previous results covered attitudes for each segment, the following results relate to
total population.
Figure 6. Attitudes towards science and technology
Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that…
Weighted to population; Base n = from 948 to 996; Total n = 1000
Respondents were most likely to agree that ‘science is such a big part of our lives that
we should all take an interest’ with four-in-five (80%) providing an agreement rating
of 7-10. There was lower but still positive agreement with the statement ‘new
technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (58% provided a rating of 7 out
of 10 or above). This latter statement was found to be a key factor in differentiating
the four segments.
There was a large spread in responses towards the statement ‘the benefits of science
are greater than any harmful effect’, with respondents just as likely to providing a
response of 7-10 or 4-6 out of 10 (44%). There were also mixed views on whether
‘technological change happens to fast for me to keep up with it’ and ‘scientific
advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’. For the former,
43% provided a rating of 7 or above, although almost a quarter rated their
agreement 4-6 (24%) while a third said 0-3 out of 10 (33%). For the latter
statement, respondents were most likely to provide middling responses of 4-6 (38%),
with a further third (34%) rating their agreement at 7-10 and 28% at 0-3 out of 10.
Respondents were most likely to provide low agreement ratings to the statements ‘we
depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (41% provided a rating of 0-3
out of 10) and ‘science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (47%
provided an agreement rating of 0-3 out of 10).
34
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
There were several significant differences in attitudes to science and technology by
gender, as detailed below in Table 11. In general, females were often more cautious
in their attitudes towards advances in science and technology than males.
Females were significantly more likely to agree that:

‘Technological change happens to fast for me to keep up with it’ (mean
agreement rating of 5.9 compared to 4.8 among males);

‘Science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (4.4 vs. 3.4);
and

‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (4.8 vs. 4.0).
Females were also significantly less likely to agree that:

‘New technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (6.4 compared to 7.1
among males); and

‘The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’ (5.8 vs. 6.2).
Table 11. Attitudes towards science and technology by gender
Average out of 10 (0-10 Strongly disagree/strongly agree scale)
Male
Female
Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it
4.8
5.9
Science and technology creates more problems than it solves
3.4
4.4
We depend too much on science and not enough on faith
4.0
4.8
New technologies excite me more than they concern me
7.1
6.4
Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest
7.9
7.8
The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect
6.2
5.8
Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor
5.1
5.3
Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that…
Weighted to population; Base n = from 948 to 996; Total n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
There were also a number of significant differences by age, as outlined in Table 12.
Older respondents tended to be more hesitant in some of their attitudes towards
science and technology. For example, those aged 51-75 provided significantly higher
mean agreement ratings than other age groups with regards to the following more
negative statements, while the younger age groups often provided lower mean
agreement ratings:

‘Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’ (6.4 among
51-75 year-olds compared to 4.2 among 16-30 year-olds)

‘Science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (4.1 compared to
3.7 among 31-50 year-olds)

‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (4.8 compared to 4.2
among both other age groups)
35
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
However, 51-75 year-olds also provided significantly higher ratings in response to:

‘Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest’ (8.1
compared to 7.6 among 16-30 year-olds)

‘The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’ (6.3 compared to
5.8 among 31-50 year-olds)

In addition, the youngest group of respondents were most likely to agree that
‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (7.2 compared to 6.5
among 31-50 year-olds).
Table 12. Attitudes towards science and technology by age
Average out of 10 (0-10 Strongly disagree/strongly agree
scale)
16-30
years
31-50
years
51-75
years
Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it
4.2
5.3
6.4
Science and technology creates more problems than it solves
3.9
3.7
4.1
We depend too much on science and not enough on faith
4.2
4.2
4.8
New technologies excite me more than they concern me
7.2
6.5
6.6
Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an
interest
7.6
7.8
8.1
The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect
5.9
5.8
6.3
Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the
poor
5.3
4.9
5.3
Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that…
Weighted to population; Base n = from 948 to 996; Total n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Some differences by employment status were observed, and these generally
reflected the differences by age. Those who were retired or pensioners were often
more wary of science and technology than those who were students or currently
employed. Those who were engaged in ‘home duties’ were also more wary.
Those who spoke a language other than English at home tended to be more
sceptical. For example, they were significantly more likely to agree that ‘science and
technology creates more problems than it solves’ (4.7 compared to 3.8 among those
who did not speak a language other than English at home), ‘we depend too much on
science and not enough on faith’ (5.4 compared to 4.3) and ‘scientific advances tend
to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (5.6 compared to 5.1).
Location also had some influence over how people felt about science and technology.
Those in capital cities were significantly more likely to agree with the statement ‘new
technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (6.8 compared to 6.5) and more
likely to disagree with the statement ‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more
than they benefit the poor’ (5.4 compared to 5.0) than those living outside capital
cities.
As covered in Section 3, these statements in addition to statements about the world
around us were included in the segmentation analysis. Details on how each
segment rated on these statements is covered in Section 3.
36
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Section 8
Attitudes to the world around us
There was less variation in the statements about the world around us. The
vast majority agreed strongly that ‘Human activities have a significant
impact on the planet’, ‘Not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ and ‘We
should use more natural ways of farming’.
There was some variation in responses by gender with females placing more
value on protecting the earth than males.
Respondents were also asked to rate their agreement with a range of more general
statements about the world around them, again using a scale of 0-10, where 0 was
‘strongly disagree’ and 10 was ‘strongly agree’. There was generally less of a
distribution in responses with regards to these statements than those relating to
science and technology (as seen in Figure 6).
Figure 7. Attitudes towards the world around us
Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that…
Weighted to population; Base n = from 935 to 990; Total n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
As shown above in Figure 7 there was high agreement that:

‘Human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (88% providing an
agreement rating of 7-10);

‘Not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ (79% rating 7-10);

‘We should use more natural ways of farming’ (74% rating 7-10); and

‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (69% rating 7-10).
37
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
However, respondents were more divided in relation to:

‘Children must be protected from all risks’ (53% provided a rating of 7-10, but
28% said 4-6 and 19% 0-3);

‘People shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (50% 7-10, 35% 4-6 and 15% 0-3); and

‘People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs’
(24% 7-10, 42% 4-6 and 33% 0-3).
Significant differences were observed in relation to these statements by a number of
demographic measures, particularly gender (Table 13). In general, females tended to
place more value on preserving the natural world than males.
They were significantly more likely to agree that:

‘Human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (8.7 out of 10 for
females compared to 8.3 among males);

‘We should use more natural ways of farming’ (8.0 compared to 7.3);

‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (7.9 compared to 6.9); and

‘People shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (6.6 compared to 6.0).
Table 13. Attitudes to the world around us by gender
Male
Female
Human activities have a significant impact on the planet
8.3
8.7
Not vaccinating children puts others at risk
8.0
8.1
We should use more natural ways of farming
7.3
8.0
I believe that everything in the world is connected
6.9
7.9
Children must be protected from all risks
6.4
6.8
People shouldn’t tamper with nature
6.0
6.6
People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
4.6
4.6
Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that…
Weighted to population; Base n = from 935 to 990; Total n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
There were fewer differences by age, although those aged 31-50 (and thus more
likely to have children under 10) were significantly more likely to agree that ‘Not
vaccinating children puts others at risk’ (8.3) than those aged 16-30 (7.5).
There were also some differences by employment status. Those who nominated
‘home duties’ as their current employment status were significantly more likely than
all other groups to agree that ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’ (8.5 out
of 10) and ‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (8.1 out of 10).
Students were more likely to agree that ‘human activities have a significant impact on
the planet’ (8.8 out of 10).
38
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
As would be expected, those with children under 10 at home were significantly
more likely than those without to agree that ‘children must be protected from all risks’
(7.1 compared to 6.4). This group was also more likely to agree that ‘people shouldn’t
tamper with nature’ (6.6 compared to 6.2 for those without children under 10).
Further, those who spoke a language other than English at home were
significantly more likely to agree that ‘I believe that everything in the world is
connected’ (8.0 compared to 7.3) and ‘children must be protected from all risks’ (7.9
compared to 6.4), but also that ‘people have the right to modify the natural
environment to suit their needs’ (5.3 compared to 4.5).
There were some differences by location. Those living outside of capital cities were
significantly more likely to agree that ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’
(7.8 compared to 7.5 for capital city dwellers). Those in Queensland were significantly
more likely than those in all other states to agree that ‘human activities have a
significant impact on the planet’ (8.8 out of 10). Notably, those in New South Wales
were more likely than those in Victoria to agree that ‘children must be protected from
all risks’ (6.9 compared to 6.2).
The statements on attitudes about the world around us were also used in the
segmentation. The relative differences in responses for segments is covered
in Table 4 in Section 3.
Section 9
Awareness of nanotechnology &
specific nanotechnology
applications
In summary, awareness of the term nanotechnology remains high with the
vast majority (87%) of respondents having at least heard of the term.
Previous results show that there has been a continual growth in awareness
over the years. In 2012, just over one in five (22%) reported they had heard
of nanotechnology and knew how it worked.
When asked in what context they had heard about nanotechnology,
respondents were most likely to mention sources from which they had heard
about nanotechnology including computing/the internet or through the
media. Medical applications or devices were the most common uses of
nanotechnology mentioned.
Unprompted awareness of products that contain nanotechnology also
increased compared to 2011 with 36% reporting they knew of projects that
contained or included nanotechnology. Sunscreen proved to be the most
commonly known item (17% of all respondents), followed by medical
instruments, creams/cosmetics/moisturisers, or computers (all 6%).
As to prompted awareness of nanotechnology applications, respondents
were most likely to say they had heard of new drug delivery systems through
a patch on your skin (56%), the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and
cosmetics (44%) and new solar panels using nanotechnology (36%).
39
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
9.1
Awareness of nanotechnology
As seen in Figure 8, almost nine in ten (87%) respondents had heard of
nanotechnology, with almost two thirds responding that they ‘had heard of
nanotechnology but knew very little or nothing about it’ (66%), and a further fifth
(22%) stating that they knew ‘what nanotechnology means and how it works’. Only
11% had not heard of nanotechnology.
Figure 8. Level of knowledge about nanotechnology
Q3i How much would you say you personally know about “nanotechnology”?
Weighted to population; Base n = 1000
Although this was asked as a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question in 2011, results suggest
that knowledge has increased in 2012, with 76% saying they had heard of
nanotechnology in 2011 compared to 87% in 2012. This reflects a continual increase
since 2005, when only 51% said they had heard of nanotechnology (See Figure 9).
40
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 9. Level of knowledge about nanotechnology by wave
Q3i How much would you say you personally know about “nanotechnology”?
Filter: Landline only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; base n = 1298
Once again, differences by gender emerged. Males were significantly more likely than
females to report they ‘knew what nanotechnology means and how it works’ (30%
compared to 14% for females). Knowledge also appeared to lower for older
respondents with 84% of those aged 51-75 having heard of nanotechnology
compared to 91% of 16-30 year-olds and 88% of 31-50 year-olds.
Those who were employed were significantly more likely to say they had heard of
nanotechnology (90% compared to 79% who were retired/pensioners and 77% who
were engaged in home duties).
There was some difference by location, with those in NSW significantly less likely to
say they had heard of nanotechnology than those in all other states (84%) compared
to all other states (89%).
There was also a strong correlation between knowledge of nanotechnology and the
attitudes to science and technology and the world around us outlined in Section 1,
above.
Having knowledge of nanotechnology was strongly correlated with feeling positively
towards the way science and technology is changing society more generally. Just over
half (55%) of those who had never heard of nanotechnology rated the impact of
science and technology positively (a rating of 7-10), compared to 73% of those who
had heard of nanotechnology but new very little or nothing about it and 83% of those
who knew what nanotechnology meant and how it works.
Further, those who had heard of nanotechnology were more likely to agree that ‘new
technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (6.9 compared to 5.6) than those
who had not, and were less likely to agree that:
41
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology

‘Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’ (5.2 compared
to 6.6);

‘Science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (3.8 compared to
5.2);

‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (5.7 compared to
4.2); and

‘Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’
(6.1 compared to 5.1).
Attitudes to the world around them were also correlated with knowledge of
nanotechnology. Those who have heard of nanotechnology were significantly less
likely to agree that:

‘We should use more natural ways of farming’ (7.6 compared to 8.1);

‘Children should be protected from all risks’ (6.4 compared to 7.8); and

‘People shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (6.1 compared to 7.6)
This was reflected in the differences in the levels of awareness between the
segments (See Section 3 for further details).
9.2
Understanding and knowledge of
nanotechnology
Respondents were asked a series of statements about their knowledge and whether
they would like to know more about nanotechnology on a 0-10 scale where 0 was
‘strongly disagree’ and 10 was ‘strongly agree’.
As Figure 10 illustrates, above, there was also a broad distribution in terms of
respondents’ understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology, but strong agreement
that they would like to know more.
42
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 10. Attitudinal statements about nanotechnology – understanding and
knowledge
Q10i B_C Q11a A Do you disagree or agree that…(Understanding and knowledge)
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 941 to 993; Total n = 1000
Similar proportions provided ratings of 0-3, 4-6 and 7-10 in relation to the statements
‘nanotechnology is difficult to understand’ (average rating of 5.5) and ‘I still really do
not understand what nanotechnology is or how it could be used’ (4.8). The latter
question was also asked in 2011 and responses were similarly distributed.
In 2012 over three quarters (76%) provided ratings of 7-10 in response to the
statement ‘I would definitely like to know more about nanotechnology and its
potential applications’, making the average agreement rating for this question 7.7. A
similar sentiment was apparent in 2011, when 75% were in agreement with the
statement.
Age and gender differences in understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology were
evident. Females and those aged 51-75 were much more likely to say they found
nanotechnology hard to understand and that they would like to know more about it
(See Table 14).
Those who spoke languages other than English were particularly more likely to find
nanotechnology difficult to understand (8.2 out of 10).
Table 14. Understanding and knowledge by gender and age
Average out of 10
I would definitely like to know more about
nanotechnology and its potential applications
Gender
Age
Male
Female
16-30
years
31-50
years
51-75
years
n=482
n=443
n=227
n=374
n=324
4.5
5.2
4.1
4.8
5.7
43
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Average out of 10
Gender
Age
Male
Female
16-30
years
31-50
years
51-75
years
n=482
n=443
n=227
n=374
n=324
I still really do not understand what
nanotechnology is or how it could be used
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.9
Nanotechnology is difficult to understand
5.2
5.8
4.9
5.3
6.3
Q10i B_C Q11a A Do you disagree or agree that…(Understanding and knowledge) (Average) by Banner Demographics
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 941 to 993; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Analysis by segment showed that Segment 4 – with the highest reported self
awareness of nanotechnology – was the least likely to say they wanted to know more
about it and its potential applications, followed by Segment 2. Segment 2 was the
least likely to agree they still really do not understand what nanotechnology is or how
it could be used – reinforcing their attitudes are based on a perceived level of
knowledge as opposed to Segment 1’s attitude towards nanotechnology where there
is a relatively lower level of understanding.
Table 15. Attitudinal statements about nanotechnology – understanding and
knowledge by segment
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=245
n=237
n=271
n=172
n=925
I would definitely like to know more about
nanotechnology and its potential applications
6.3
4.5
5.0
3.3
4.9
I still really do not understand what
nanotechnology is or how it could be used
7.9
7.3
7.8
7.8
7.7
Nanotechnology is difficult to understand
6.6
5.3
5.6
4.0
5.5
Q10i B_C Q11a A Do you disagree or agree that…(Understanding and knowledge) (Average) by Segment
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 941 to 993; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Context in which respondents had heard about nanotechnology
Respondents who were aware of nanotechnology were asked, unprompted, about the
context in which they had heard of it. All mentions are outlined in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Context in which respondents had heard about nanotechnology
(unprompted)
%
Computing/the internet
16
Media/TV/news/magazines/read about it/movies
15
44
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
%
Medical devices
14
Medical applications (general mention/NFI)
14
Micro or small science or technology
8
Sunscreen lotions/sunblock products
6
Science fiction/futuristic
7
School/education/university
5
Small robots
4
Microchips/microcircuits
3
Areas of science (chemistry/physics/biology/biotechnolgy etc)
2
Moisturisers/cosmetics
2
Word of mouth
2
I-Pod Nano product
2
Engineering/manufacturing/engineering
2
Miniaturisation
2
Textiles
1
Mobile phones
1
Atoms and molecules
1
Paint
1
Health and safety issues
1
Note only top 20 mentions listed above.
Q4a and b In what context have you heard about the term “nanotechnology”?
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 873; Total n = 1000
Respondents were most likely to say they had heard about nanotechnology from the
internet (16%), from the ‘media/TV/news/magazines/read about it/movies’ (15%),
followed by mentions of ‘medical devices’ (14%) and ‘medical applications’ (14%).
With regards to total mentions, there were a number of differences by gender in
2012. Males were significantly more likely than females to mention:

Medical devices (18% compared to 10%);

Medical applications (16% compared to 11%);

Micro or small science or technology (10% compared to 5%).
There was also variation noted by age. Those aged 16-30 were significantly more
likely to mention ‘from school/education/university’ (14% compared to 2% among all
other age groups), while those aged 51-75 were more likely to mention ‘medical
applications’ (17% compared to 10% among 16-30 year-olds) or ‘sunscreen lotions’
(13% compared to 1% among 16-30 year-olds and 4% among 31-50 year olds).
45
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Employment status also influenced the context in which people had heard of
nanotechnology. Unsurprisingly, those who were employed were more likely to
mention ‘the internet’ (18%). Those who were retired/pensioners were more likely to
mention ‘sunscreen lotions’ (11%).
Those who spoke a language other than English at home were more likely to
mention ‘the internet’ than those who did not (24% compared to 15%).
There were many differences with regards to people’s level of awareness of
nanotechnology, as outlined in Table 16, below. As would be expected, those who
‘knew what nanotechnology means and how it works’ were more likely to mention
most of the applications and locations than those who had ‘heard of it but know very
little or nothing about it’, including, for example:

‘Computing/the internet’ (23% compared to 14%);

‘Medical devices’ (30% compared to 9%);

‘Medical applications’ (26% compared to 10%);

‘Micro or small science or technology’ (15% compared to 5%); and

‘Sunscreen lotions’ (10% compared to 5%).
However, those who had ‘heard of [nanotechnology] but know very little or nothing
about it’ were more likely to mention ‘media/TV/news/magazines/read about
it/movies’ (18% compared to 8%).
Table 16. Nanotechnology context by awareness of nanotechnology
Have heard of it but
know very little or
nothing about it
Know what
nanotechnology
means and how it
works
Computing/the internet
14
23
Media/TV/news/magazines/read about it/movies
18
8
9
30
10
26
Micro or small science or technology
5
15
Sunscreen lotions/sun block products
5
10
Science fiction/futuristic
6
7
School/education/university
5
8
Small robots
3
6
Microchips/microcircuits
2
6
Areas of science
(chemistry/physics/biology/biotechnology etc)
1
5
Medical devices
Medical applications (general mention/NFI)
Q4a and b In what context have you heard about the term “nanotechnology”?
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 873; Total n = 1000
Note: Only Top 12 mentions listed
46
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
9.2.1
Awareness of products containing nanotechnology
All participants were asked, if they knew of any products that include or are made
with nanotechnology. The majority (57%) said ‘no’, while 36% said ‘yes’. This marks
a significant increase in knowledge of products when compared to 2011, when only
29% said ‘yes’.
Figure 12. Nanotechnology – awareness of products
Q7ai Do you know of any products that include nanotechnology or are made with nanotechnology?
Filter: CATI only; Weighted to population
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to 2011
The most common product respondents were aware of was ‘sunscreen’ (mentioned by
17% of the total sample), followed by ‘medical instruments/health diagnostics’ (6%),
‘creams/cosmetics/face creams/moisturisers’ (6%) and ‘computers’ (6%). Results are
detailed in Figure 13.
47
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 13. Nanotechnology – unprompted awareness of specific products
Q7b What products are you aware of? (Rebased to population)
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; Base n = 1000
When the data was analysed by age, it emerged that older respondents were
significantly more likely to say they were aware of products that include
nanotechnology than younger respondents (44% of 51-75 year-olds aware compared
to 34% of 31-50 year-olds and 29% of 16-30 year-olds).
Those with children under 10 at home were significantly less likely to say they were
aware of products that use/include nanotechnology than those without (63% ‘no’
compared to 55%), although those without children under 10 were significantly more
likely to say ‘don’t know’ (8% compared to 2%).
As to specific products, not surprisingly, females were significantly more likely than
males to mention ‘creams/cosmetics/face creams/moisturisers’ (8% compared to 4%)
while males were more likely to mention ‘paint’ and ‘electronics/semi-conductors’ (3%
compared to 1% respectively).
Knowledge of specific products also varied by age. Those aged 51-75 were again
significantly more likely to mention ‘sunscreen’ (25% mentioning compared to 9% of
16-30 year-olds). In addition, those aged 16-30 were more likely to mention
‘computers’ (8% compared to 4%) and ‘mobile phones’ (5% compared to 1%) than
those aged 51-75 years.
Those who spoke a language other than English at home were also significantly
more likely to mention ‘sunscreen’ (18% compared to 6%).
48
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Consistent with overall awareness results, we find that Segment 1 had the lowest
unprompted awareness of products containing or using nanotechnology. Specific
applications tended to be higher for Segment 4 including 53% who could name at
least one applications and 26% who mentioned sunscreen.
Table 17: Nanotechnology – unprompted awareness of specific products by
segment
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
Total
n=272
n=256
n=296
n=176
n=1000
75
64
64
47
64
Sunscreen
9
21
15
26
17
Medical instruments/health diagnostics
4
6
6
8
6
Creams/cosmetics/face creams/moisturisers
4
5
8
6
6
Computers
3
3
7
11
6
Medical applications (general mention NFI)
2
5
4
9
5
Mobile phones
3
1
4
4
3
Paint
1
2
1
6
2
Electronics/Semi-conductors
1
2
1
6
2
I-Pod Nanotechnology
2
2
2
3
2
Clothing using nanotechnology
0
2
1
4
2
Drug delivery systems
0
1
2
4
2
Carbon nanotubes
0
1
0
4
1
Space industry
0
1
0
1
1
Microchip for pets/Animal tracking for
veterinarian or animal protection uses
0
0
0
2
1
Glazing finishers
0
0
1
2
1
Solar (specific mention)
0
1
0
1
1
Other
4
6
6
11
6
Not aware of nanotechnology
Q7b What products are you aware of?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
9.3
Awareness of specific nanotechnology
applications
All respondents were asked if they had heard of any from a list of eight applications of
nanotechnology, as detailed in Figure 14.
Over half (56%) had heard of ‘new drug delivery systems through a patch on your
skin’, making this the most commonly heard of application. This was followed by ‘the
use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics’ (44%) and ‘new solar panels using
nanotechnology’ (36%). ‘Nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and
49
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
freshness’ elicited the lowest level of awareness, with 17% stating that they had
heard of this application. Awareness of specific applications has remained fairly
consistent since 2011.
Figure 14. Nanotechnology – prompted awareness of specific applications
Q8a Have you heard of any of the following uses of nanotechnology?
Filter: CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 2012 – 1000; 2011 – 500.
In terms of gender, males were significantly more likely to say they had heard of a
number of applications than females, specifically:

New solar panels using nanotechnology (39% compared to 32%);

Water filtration through nanosized filters (37% compared to 22%); and

Carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing (35% compared to 17%).
Awareness also differed by age, with the youngest and oldest group differing in their
responses on a number of measures. Younger people (16-30) were significantly more
likely to say they had heard of ‘new solar panels using nanotechnology’ (42%
compared to 30% among 31-50 year-olds) and ‘carbon nanotubes used in
manufacturing’ (30% compared to 26% among 31-50 year-olds and 22% among 5175 year-olds).
Older people (51-75), however, were significantly more likely to say they had heard
of:

'New drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin’ (65% compared to
45% among 16-30 year-olds)

'The use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics’ (52% compared to 38%
among 16-30 year-olds)
50
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology

'Nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and freshness’ (20%
compared to 16% among 16-30 year-olds and 14% among 31-50 year-olds).
Employment status also influenced the applications people were aware of.
Employed respondents were significantly more likely to say they had heard of:

'Water filtration through nanosized filters’ (32%);

'Carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing’ (28%); and

'Using nano silver which provides anti-bacterial surfaces in consumer products
such as fridges and washing machines’ (24%).
Meanwhile, those who were retired or pensioners were more likely to be aware of
‘new drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin’ (64%) compared to those
who were not retired or pensioners (55%).
Awareness of some applications of nanotechnology also varied depending on
location. Those in South Australia were more likely to be aware of 'water filtration
through nanosized filters’ (42% compared to an average of 29%), while those in
Western Australia were more likely to say they had heard of ‘the use of nanoparticles
in sunscreens and cosmetics’ (55% compared to an average of 42%). There were no
differences in terms of capital dwellers vs. non capital city residents.
Predictably, those who had heard of nanotechnology were more likely to say they had
heard of all the applications than those who had not. Further, among those who had
heard of it, the people who knew what nanotechnology means and how it works were
also more likely to have heard of all applications than those who had heard of it but
knew very little or nothing about it, as shown below in Table 18.
Table 18 - Nanotechnology – prompted awareness of specific applications
Have not
heard of it
Have heard
of it but
know very
little or
nothing
about it
Know what
nanotechnolo
gy means
and how it
works
Subtotal Have heard
of it
New drug delivery systems through
a patch on your skin
33
53
79
59
The use of nanoparticles in
sunscreens and cosmetics
13
41
68
48
New solar panels using
nanotechnology
18
34
50
38
Water filtration through nanosized
filters
14
25
54
32
Carbon nanotubes used in
manufacturing
8
19
57
28
Using nano silver which provides
anti-bacterial surfaces in consumer
products such as fridges and
washing machines
7
17
34
21
51
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Have not
heard of it
Have heard
of it but
know very
little or
nothing
about it
Know what
nanotechnolo
gy means
and how it
works
Subtotal Have heard
of it
Using nanoparticles to improve the
nutritional qualities of food
3
17
24
19
Nanoparticles in food packaging to
monitor food quality and freshness
11
16
23
18
At least 1 of the above
50
83
98
86
Q8a Have you heard of any of the following uses of nanotechnology?
Filter: CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
As with awareness overall, we see a similar pattern according to the segments with
significantly lower awareness reported amongst members of Segment 1 and higher
reported awareness among Segment 4 respondents (See Table 19).
Table 19 - Nanotechnology – prompted awareness of specific applications by
segment
%
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=272
n=256
n=296
n=176
n=1000
New drug delivery systems through a patch
on your skin
45
61
55
69
56
The use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and
cosmetics
31
48
44
57
44
New solar panels using nanotechnology
28
36
39
43
36
Water filtration through nanosized filters
22
30
28
43
30
Carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing
13
27
26
44
26
Using nano silver which provides antibacterial surfaces in consumer products such
as fridges and washing machines
14
18
20
32
20
Using nanoparticles to improve the nutritional
qualities of food
17
14
18
21
17
Nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor
food quality and freshness
16
14
18
20
17
73
86
82
91
82
At least one of the above
Q8a Have you heard of any of the following uses of nanotechnology?
Filter: CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
52
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Section 10
Attitudes towards
nanotechnology and specific
nanotechnology applications
Attitudes towards nanotechnology are high with ratings on how people felt
about the potential implications of nanotechnology averaging 7.5 out of 10.
For the most part, respondents felt that the benefits of nanotechnology
outweighed the risk but a substantial proportion of the respondents did not
feel equipped to say what the balance of risk was. There was a slight
increase since the last survey in those who said the benefits outweighed the
risks, however, the most notable change was the shift from those who said
the benefits are equal to the risks to those saying ‘don’t know’ – although in
2012 respondents were advised that ‘don’t know’ was a valid response.
10.1
General attitudes towards nanotechnology
Early in the survey, all respondents were asked how they felt towards the potential
implications of nanotechnology on a scale where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is
extremely positive. Attitudes towards the implications of nanotechnology are
generally positive. The average agreement rating was 7.5 out of 10, with 74%
providing a rating of 7-10, 24% 4-6 and 2% 0-3.
Figure 15. Attitudes towards the potential implications of nanotechnology
and other technologies
Q12a How positive or negative, would you say you feel towards the potential implications of
nanotechnology. Please use a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive? If
you can’t say or don’t know, just say so. Start of survey)
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 953; Total n = 1000
Towards the end of the survey, the same question was repeated, and it appears that
the survey may have influenced some respondents’ feelings towards nanotechnology.
The average agreement rating was significantly lower at 7.1 compared to 7.5, when
asked earlier in the survey. The proportion rating their attitude at 7-10 decreased
from 74% to 68%, while those rating it 4-6 increased from 24% to 29%. However, it
53
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
should be noted that biggest difference was the increase in those who reported ‘don’t
know’ responses (from 47 respondents to 123 respondents).
Gender had a strong influence on attitudes towards the implications of
nanotechnology, with males feeling significantly more positive overall (an average
rating of 7.8 compared to 7.2 among females).
The same was true of age. Those aged 16-30 were more positive on average than
those aged 31-50 (7.7 compared to 7.3).
There were few differences by employment status, although those engaged in ‘home
duties’ were significantly less positive on average than all others (6.9 compared to 7.5
overall).
There were no differences in attitudes in terms of location.
As we have seen through the segmentation, higher levels of awareness and
knowledge of nanotechnology were correlated with more positive attitudes
towards its potential implications. Those who had heard of nanotechnology,
regardless of their level of knowledge, were significantly more positive towards the
potential implications of nanotechnology on average than those who had not heard of
it (7.5 compared to 7.0). Among those who were aware, those who knew what
nanotechnology means and how it works were significantly more supportive than
those who had heard about it but knew very little or nothing about it (7.9 compared
to 7.4).
As previously discussed, these differences are reflected in differences observed across
the segments (See Figure 16).
Figure 16: Attitudes towards potential implications of nanotechnology by
segment
Q12a How positive or negative would you say you were towards the potential implications of
nanotechnology?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 953; total n = 1000
54
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Note: Means exclude don’t know responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
10.1.1
Risks vs. benefits of nanotechnology
All respondents in the telephone (CATI) survey were asked if they thought the risks of
nanotechnology outweigh the benefits, if the risks and benefits are equal, or if the
benefits outweigh the risks. Results are shown above in Figure 17.
Almost half (49%) said they thought the benefits outweighed the risks, while 18%
thought the risks and benefits were equal. Only 6% said that the risks outweighed the
benefits, although over one quarter (27%) ‘couldn’t say’ or ‘didn’t know’, again
reflecting the finding that many people felt they lacked an informed understanding of
nanotechnology and its implications to make a judgment.
Figure 17. Perceptions of the risk associated with nanotechnology
Q14 On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks are
equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the risks? Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to
population; Base n = 1000
As Figure 18 shows, since 20111, people have moved away from saying that the risks
are equal to the benefits (28% in 2011 compared to 19% in 2012) and towards ‘can’t
say/don’t know’ (16% in 2011 compared to 27% in 2012). However, these results do
not appear to reflect any long-term trend, with results varying considerably from
wave to wave. It should also be noted in the 2012 survey, respondents were
expressly told that ‘don’t know’ was a valid answer given that although many had
heard of nanotechnology, for the most part, respondents had heard of it but said they
knew little or nothing about it (See Section 9 - Awareness of nanotechnology &
specific nanotechnology applications).
55
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 18. Perceptions of the risk associated with nanotechnology by wave
Q14 On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks are
equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the risks?
Filter: Weighted to population; Base n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared 2011
When looking at gender it emerges that males were significantly more likely than
females to say the benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risks (61% compared
to 38% of females), while females were more likely to say ‘can’t say’ or ‘don’t know’
(37% compared to 17%). This is consistent with the segmentation and other results
when looking at knowledge and awareness by gender.
Also consistent with other findings, in terms of age, older people appeared to be
more hesitant to comment on the implications of nanotechnology than younger
people. Those aged 16-30 were significantly more likely to say that the benefits
outweighed the risks than those aged 51-75 (59% compared to 44%), while those
aged 51-75 were significantly more likely to say ‘can’t say’ or ‘don’t know’ (32%
compared to 16% among 18-30 year-olds).
No significant differences were found by language spoken, presence of children under
10 or location.
Perceptions of the risks vs. benefits were correlated with reported awareness of
nanotechnology much in line with the differences observed across the attitude
segments. Relative to other segments, Segment 4 with the highest level of reported
awareness, was most likely to believe that the benefits outweighed the risks.
Segment 3 was also more likely to have this belief than those not in that segment.
Close to half of Segment 2 (49%) felt the benefits outweighed the risks however,
they did tend to be more cynical about the benefits of science and technology –
although they admit there are some. Segment 1 were the least likely to believe that
the risks outweighed the benefits, however they were the most likely to feel that were
not well informed enough to judge.
56
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 19: Risks vs. benefits of nanotechnology by segment
Q14 On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks are
equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the risks?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 1000
10.1.2
Support for nanotechnology relative to other
technologies
In a supplementary question in the online survey, respondents were asked how they
felt towards a range of technologies (including nanotechnology) on a scale where 0
was completely against it and 10 was completely supportive. Results are illustrated in
Figure 20.
Nanotechnology came third in terms of support, with an average support rating of 6.9
out of 10. However, nanotechnology was one of the categories of technology where
there was a notable proportion of respondents who could not say what their level of
support was highlighting that it is one of the less known and less accessible areas of
science.
Respondents felt most positively towards stem cell research (7.6), and the role of
science and technology in addressing climate change (7.0). The majority also felt
positively towards quantum computing research (6.8).
57
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 20. Feelings towards nanotechnology and other technologies – Online
only
Q22i What is your level of support for the following science and technology developments? If for any of the
technologies, you are not sure, please just say so. Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is completely against it
and 10 is completely supportive, how would you say you feel towards...
Feelings were far more mixed in relation to genetically modified foods and cloning.
The highest proportion provided a middling response of 4-6 (38% for both) to both
these technologies, but a similar proportion expressed low support (0-3, 35% for GM,
36% for cloning), while only a quarter expressed high support (7-10, 27% for GM and
26% for cloning).
10.1.3
Impact of nanotechnology on our way of life in the
future
Online respondents were asked what they thought the impact of a range of
technologies (including nanotechnology) would have on things in the future.
Respondents were most likely to think that stem cell research would ‘improve our way
of life in the future’ (82%), followed by biotechnology and nanotechnology (both at
61%). Notably, there were high levels of uncertainty over the impact of both
biotechnology and nanotechnology, with 31% saying they didn’t know what the
impact of these technologies would be (See Figure 21).
58
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 21. Future impacts of nanotechnology
Q1b (Online) Do you think these technologies will generally improve, have no effect, or make things worse
in the future?
Filter: 2012 only and Online only n=1000
There was a diversity of attitudes also in relation to genetic modification with 41%
stating it would ‘improve our life in future’ but also 30% stating it would ‘make things
worse in future’. Respondents were most likely to feel negatively about the impact of
cloning of animals (35% stating it would ‘make things worse in the future’) and
cloning human embryos (41% stating it would ‘make things worse in the future’).
A different scale was used in the 2011 version of the survey with respondents asked
whether they were ‘excited’, ‘hopeful’, ‘concerned’, ‘alarmed’ or ‘neutral’ about these.
Similarly to the 2012 survey, respondents were most likely to feel ‘excited’ or
‘hopeful’ in relation to stem cell research (36% and 45%, respectively), followed by
‘nanotechnology’ .
10.1.4
Unprompted attitudes towards nanotechnology
All respondents who had heard of nanotechnology were asked how they felt about it
in an open response question. Just under half (46%) provided positive comments.
Most commonly, comments were fairly vague, with a quarter (25%) providing
responses that they thought nanotechnology was ‘positive/good/in favour of it’,
followed by 7% who said it was ‘interesting’. A further 3% of comments were positive
but with qualification.
Table 20: Unprompted attitudes towards nanotechnology
%
Positive comments
Positive/good/in favour of it
25
It's interesting/I am interested/curious
7
I can see the value of it in certain contexts e.g.
medicine/chemistry etc
4
There are lots of benefits associated with it
4
59
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
%
It's a breakthrough for science/new layer of knowledge/new
technology
3
It's progress/innovative/the way of the future etc.
3
Very useful for society as a whole
3
It has potential/a lot of potential
3
It's versatile/flexible/has a lot of applications.
3
Exciting area
3
Involves engineering of very small particles
2
Mostly positive
2
Positive - other comments
1
Subtotal
Positive but with
qualification
Negative comments
Positive - but I need more information about nanotechnology
1
As long as there are no harmful effects.
1
Has great potential as long as risks are managed
1
Subtotal
3
We need to be cautious/take it slowly.
4
Needs more testing/research
2
Concerns about the risks/benefits versus risks
2
Nanotechnology was scary/concerning concept
2
There is a potential for it to be misused
2
Negative - due to health risks
1
More regulation is needed
1
More transparency of nanotechnology information is needed
1
Negative - other comments
1
It depends on what it will be used for/how it will be used/used
correctly
1
I think it could get out of hand/could happen too quickly
1
We need to be more aware of the implications/long term effects
1
I am sceptical/suspicious/have reservations
1
I am against it/ don't like the idea
1
It could be dangerous/could have dangers associated with it
1
Subtotal
Neutral
46
17
Ambivalent/undecided/mixed response/neutral
5
There are positives and negatives
2
Indifferent/not interested
3
I need to know more
1
60
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
%
Don't know/not
sure/don't know enough
about it/no opinion
It's inevitable/I just accept it
1
I don't have an attitude/opinion
6
Subtotal
18
Don't know enough/anything/much
22
Don't Know
6
Unsure
1
Unsure - other comments
1
Unsure - sounds too futuristic
0
Subtotal
30
No comment made
2
Q6i Based on what you know about “nanotechnology”, how would you describe your attitudes towards it?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 873; total n = 1000
Just under a third (30%) provided comments around not feeling they know enough
about nanotechnology to have an opinion, while 18% provided neutral comments.
Approximately a sixth (17%) provided negative comments. These were wide ranging,
but the most common category of negative responses related to ‘we need to be
cautious/take it slowly’ (4%).
10.2
Attitudes relating to nanotechnology issues
Respondents generally believed that nanotechnology would improve the
future quality of life in Australia and there was moderate agreement that
there would be a positive impact on employment and the economy.
There was widespread agreement that product labelling should provide
information about any nanotechnology used with moderate agreement that it
was important to know what products contained nanotechnology. However,
there was a mismatch with attitudes and behaviour with few respondents
saying they always read labels of products to see if a product contains
nanotechnology.
All respondents were presented with a number of statements about nanotechnology
and asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed using a scale where 0 was
‘strongly disagree’ and 10 was ‘strongly agree’. Results relating to each of these
statements have been commentated upon by theme below. Where possible, results
have been compared to findings from the 2011 study, although it is important to note
that this used a different scale (5 points from ‘agree strongly’ to ‘disagree strongly’).
10.2.1
Impact of nanotechnology on life in Australia
In relation to the impact of nanotechnology on life in Australia, there was relatively
high agreement with ‘I believe nanotechnology will improve the future quality of life in
Australia’ (7.0 out of 10). In 2011, a different scale was used but the majority (57%)
were also in agreement with the statement.
61
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Agreement that ‘nanotechnologies will have a positive impact on employment and the
economy of Australia’ was lower (6.4 in 2012). There was similarly moderate
agreement when this question was asked in 2011 (45% agreeing strongly or
somewhat, and 35% neither agreeing nor disagreeing). Notably, one in five
respondents were not able to say what the impact would be on the economy (20%).
These findings are outlined in Figure 22.
Figure 22. Attitudes towards the impact of nanotechnology
Q10i A D Do you disagree or agree that... (Impact of nanotechnology)
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 792 to 883; Total n = 1000
Consistent with other findings in relation to gender, males were more vocal in their
support for technology and therefore were more likely to agree that ‘nanotechnology
will improve the future quality of life in Australia’ (7.3 out of 10 vs. 6.7) and that
‘nanotechnologies will have a positive impact on employment and the economy of
Australia’.
Younger respondents (16-30 year olds) were also more likely to believe that
nanotechnologies would have a positive impact on the quality of life in Australia (7.5)
than older respondents (6.9).
There were also differences by segments. As with other findings, Segment 1 and 2
were significantly less likely to agree with both statements. Consistent with the profile
of Segment 1, ‘don’t know’ responses also tended to be higher for Segment 1.
Segments 3 and 4 on the other hand, were both more likely to agree there would be
positive outcomes from nanotechnology (See Table 21).
62
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Table 21. Attitudes towards the impact of nanotechnology by segment
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Totals
n=177
n=195
n=247
n=142
n=761
I believe nanotechnology will improve the
future quality of life in Australia
6.2
6.6
7.6
7.9
7.0
Nanotechnology applications will have a
positive impact on employment and the
economy of Australia
6.1
6.0
6.8
7.0
6.4
Q10i A D Do you disagree or agree that... (Impact of nanotechnology)
Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responses
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 792 to 883; total n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
10.2.2
Labelling of products containing or using
nanotechnology
As Figure 23 details, with regards to labelling there was highest agreement that
‘product labelling should provide information about any nanotechnology used’ (7.9).
Results show that looking at labelling was not common with the average agreement
rating with ‘I always read product labels to see if a product contains nanotechnology’
at 2.6 out of 10.
Figure 23. Attitudes on nanotechnology labelling
Q10i E J K Q11a F Do you disagree or agree that… (Labelling) Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to
population; Base n = from 963 to 984; Total n = 1000
Interestingly, the low agreement with the latter statement would appear to contradict
relatively high agreement that ‘It is important to me to know if the products I buy are
made with nanotechnology or include some form of nanotechnology’ (6.5, similar to
63
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
the 2011 result when 59% agreed with the statement). This reflects a common
disjuncture between beliefs and behaviours. Most people responded to these
questions in a similar way, although there was a larger distribution of responses in
relation to ‘only products with nanotechnology of concern should be labelled’. Almost
half (46%) provided a rating of 7-10, but 34% said 0-3.
As to gender and age differences, females and those aged 51-75 felt more strongly
about labelling including information about any nanotechnology used and that it was
important for them to know if the products they buy include or are made from
nanotechnology. However, in terms of behaviour, while still low, those aged 51-75
were likely to agree they read labels to see if products contain nanotechnology (See
Table 22).
Table 22. Attitudes on nanotechnology labelling by gender and age
Average out of 10
Gender
Age
Male
Female
16-30
years
31-50
years
51-75
years
n=472
n=443
n=219
n=375
n=984
Product labelling should provide information about any
nanotechnology used
7.5
8.2
7.2
8.0
8.2
It is important for me to know if the products I buy are
made with nanotechnology or include some form of
nanotechnology
6.2
7.0
6.0
6.6
7.0
Only products with nanotechnology of concern should
be labelled
5.7
5.4
5.7
5.5
5.5
I always read product labels to see if a product
contains nanotechnology
2.6
2.6
1.8
2.4
3.4
Q10i E J K Q11a F Do you disagree or agree that… (Labelling)
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 963 to 984; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Differences between the segments showed that Segment 1 tended to be the most
conservative with the highest agreement that labelling should provide information
about any nanotechnology used and that it was important for them to know if the
products they buy contain nanotechnology. Although still low, they were the most
likely of the segments to say they read product labels to see if nanotechnology had
been used. Across the board, Segment 4 seemed less concerned with labelling
nanotechnology products. Segment 3 had a relatively high agreement that only
products with nanotechnology of concern should be labelled compared to other
segments.
Table 23. Attitudes on nanotechnology labelling by segment
Average out of 10
Product labelling should provide information
about any nanotechnology used
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=244
n=235
n=274
n=162
n=984
8.8
7.6
8.0
6.6
7.9
64
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=244
n=235
n=274
n=162
n=984
It is important for me to know if the products
I buy are made with nanotechnology or
include some form of nanotechnology
7.7
6.4
6.4
5.3
6.6
Only products with nanotechnology of
concern should be labelled
6.3
4.8
5.9
4.8
5.5
I always read product labels to see if a
product contains nanotechnology
3.1
2.6
2.5
1.9
2.6
Q10i E J K Q11a F Do you disagree or agree that… (Labelling) (Average)
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 963 to 984; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
10.3
Examination of concerns about
nanotechnology
As seen in Section 10.1.4 relating to unprompted attitudes towards
nanotechnology, comments were largely positive. As such, there was only
moderate agreement to the statements related to specific concerns.
Respondents were most likely to agree that because nanotechnology was so
new, that there might be problems for public safety. There was moderate
agreement with being concerned about the unexpected risks of
nanotechnology. Workplace safety was the one area where respondents
were least sure about. Overall concerns tended to be greater for female
respondents, those who spoke a language other than English at home and
Segment 1 respondents.
Respondents were asked a series of statements related to common concerns about
nanotechnology. As seen in Figure 24 , agreement was highest with the statement:
‘because nanotechnology is so new, there might be problems for public safety’ (6.6
out of 10) and ‘I am concerned about the unexpected risks involved in the use of
nanotechnology’ (6.2 out of 10). In comparison, in 2011 50% were in agreement with
the latter statement.
Agreement was low with ‘the new processes of nanotechnology may cause problems
for worker safety’ (5.5 out of 10). However, close to a third (29%) of all respondents
were not able to say whether they agreed or disagreed to this statement.
Agreement was lowest for ‘I have concerns about nanotechnology’ (5.1) – although
close to one in three (30%) provided a rating of 0-3 for the latter measure.
65
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 24. Statements related to concerns about nanotechnology
Q10i F G H & Q11a B C G Do you disagree or agree that... (Concerns)
Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 710 to 958; Total n = 1000
As to demographic differences, females were more likely to have higher levels of
agreement to all the statements relating to concerns about nanotechnology (See
Table 24).
Younger respondents also tended to have lower levels of concern particularly when
it came to concerns that nanotechnology is so new that there might be problems for
public safety, the health and safety risks of nanotechnology, new processes of
nanotechnology causing problems for worker safety, and generally having concerns
related to nanotechnology.
Table 24. Statements related to concerns about nanotechnology by gender
and age
Average out of 10
Gender
Age
Male
Female
16-30
years
31-50
years
51-75
years
n=372
n=297
n=176
n=264
n=229
Because nanotechnology is so new, there might
be problems for public safety
6.2
7.0
6.3
6.6
6.8
I am concerned about the unexpected risks
involved in the use of nanotechnology
5.7
6.7
6.2
6.1
6.4
I am concerned about the health and safety
risks of nanotechnology
5.5
6.5
5.7
6.1
6.3
I am concerned about the environmental risks
of nanotechnology
5.4
6.5
6.0
5.9
6.0
66
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Average out of 10
Gender
Age
Male
Female
16-30
years
31-50
years
51-75
years
n=372
n=297
n=176
n=264
n=229
The new processes of nanotechnology may
cause problems for worker safety
5.1
5.8
5.1
5.3
5.8
I have concerns about nanotechnology
4.5
5.6
4.4
5.0
5.7
Q10i F G H & Q11a B C G Do you disagree or agree that... (Concerns) (Average)
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 710 to 958; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude don’t know responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
As shown in Table 25, those who were employed were significantly less likely to be
concerned with the environmental risks of nanotechnology (5.7 out of 10). They were
also less likely than those who were not employed to agree with that ‘new processes
of nanotechnology may cause problems for worker safety’ (5.2 out of 10).
Like females, those who spoke a language other than English at home were
significantly more likely to agree to all statements relating to concerns about
nanotechnology.
Table 25. Statements related to concerns about nanotechnology by
employment and language spoken at home
Student
Yes
No
n=394
n=112
n=27
n=110
n=19
n=92
n=577
Because nanotechnology is so new,
there might be problems for public
safety
6.4
6.9
7.3
6.5
6.5
7.1
6.5
I am concerned about the
unexpected risks involved in the use
of nanotechnology
6.1
6.4
6.8
6.3
6.0
6.8
6.1
I am concerned about the health
and safety risks of nanotechnology
5.9
6.2
6.7
6.0
6.0
6.8
5.9
I am concerned about the
environmental risks of
nanotechnology
5.7
6.1
6.3
6.5
6.3
6.8
5.8
The new processes of
nanotechnology may cause
problems for worker safety
5.2
6.0
5.6
5.4
5.7
6.1
5.3
Unemployed
Home duties
Language other
than English at
home
Retired or
Pensioner
Employment status
Employed
(FT/PT/Self)
Average out of 10
67
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Student
Yes
No
n=394
n=112
n=27
n=110
n=19
n=92
n=577
4.9
5.9
5.2
4.7
5.1
5.5
5.0
Unemployed
Home duties
Language other
than English at
home
Retired or
Pensioner
I have concerns about
nanotechnology
Employment status
Employed
(FT/PT/Self)
Average out of 10
Q10i F G H & Q11a B C G Do you disagree or agree that... (Concerns) (Average)
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 710 to 958; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude don’t know responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
As to the segments, Segment 1 was the most likely to be concerned about
nanotechnology in general, with higher agreement to all statements. Segment 4, the
segment with the most positive attitude towards the science and technology, were
generally less concerned. Segment 1 were significantly less likely than all the other
segments combined to be concerned about the environmental risks (5.7) or to agree
they had concerns about nanotechnology (4.8 out of 10).
Table 26. Statements related to concerns about nanotechnology by segment
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=175
n=160
n=200
n=134
n=710
Because nanotechnology is so new, there might
be problems for public safety
7.7
6.5
6.5
5.0
6.6
I am concerned about the unexpected risks
involved in the use of nanotechnology
7.5
6.3
6.1
4.4
6.2
I am concerned about the health and safety
risks of nanotechnology
7.4
5.9
6.1
4.2
6.0
I am concerned about the environmental risks
of nanotechnology
7.3
6.1
5.7
4.2
6.0
The new processes of nanotechnology may
cause problems for worker safety
6.5
5.3
5.4
4.0
5.4
I have concerns about nanotechnology
6.6
5.2
4.8
3.2
5.1
Q10i F G H & Q11a B C G Do you disagree or agree that... (Concerns) (Average) by Segment
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 710 to 958; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude don’t know responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
68
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
10.4
Attitudes towards specific applications of
nanotechnology
As seen in Section 9.3, awareness of specific applications was not high
although most had heard of at least one of the applications listed. Among
those who were aware of the applications, respondents were least likely to
have heard positive things about using nanoparticles to improve the
nutritional qualities of food, using nanoparticles in sunscreen and cosmetics
and using nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and
freshness.
Medical applications or environmental applications of nanotechnology were
most likely to be viewed as a positive use of nanotechnology.
Those who were aware of any of the specific applications of nanotechnology detailed
in Figure 14 were asked if what they had heard about these applications was positive,
negative or both.
As Figure 25 shows, respondents were most likely to have heard exclusively positive
things about ‘new solar panels using nanotechnology’ (82% positive), followed by
‘'Water filtration through nanosized filters’ (77%) and 'carbon nanotubes used in
manufacturing’ (75%).
The majority had also heard positive things about 'new drug delivery systems
through a patch on your skin’ (73%), 'using nano silver which provides anti-bacterial
surfaces in consumer products such as fridges and washing machine’ (70%) and
‘Nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and freshness’ (57%).
Figure 25. Attitudes towards familiar applications of nanotechnology
Q8b Has what you heard about it been positive, negative or neither, or both? Filter: 2012 only AND CATI
only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 166 to 570; Total n = 1000
69
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
While fewer had heard exclusively positive things about ‘the use of nanoparticles in
sunscreens and cosmetics’ (43%) only 17% said what they heard was negative and
10% said ‘neither positive nor negative’, 22% ‘both positive and negative’ and 8%
unsure.
A similar distribution was seen in relation to ‘using nanoparticles to improve
nutritional qualities of food’ (42% ‘positive’, 17% ‘negative’, 11% ‘neither positive or
negative’ 16% ‘both positive and negative’ and 14% ‘unsure).
There has been some change in the composition of the types of things people had
heard about the various applications of nanotechnology compared to 2011. While in
all cases, there was no change in positive things people had heard about the
applications, there tended to be an increase in those who were unsure of what they
had heard about it. Other notable differences since the last survey included:

For ‘carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing’ there was a significant increase in
the positive things people had heard (62% to 73%) – although awareness
overall was low.

‘the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics’, had a decrease in those
who had heard exclusively negative things (27% down to 18%) or things that
were neither positive nor negative (25% down to 11%) and an increase in those
who had heard both positive and negative points (9% up to 21%).

For ‘new drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin’, there was a
decrease in neither positive or negative things (form 19% to 9%), and an
increase in both positive and negative (1% to 10%).

For ‘nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and freshness’,
there was also a decrease in neither (29% to 13%) but a substantial increase in
unsure (0% to 11%)

For ‘using nano silver which provides anti-bacterial surfaces in consumer
products such as fridges and washing machine’, there was a significant decrease
in the negative ‘press’ people had heard (11% to 4%) and also a decrease in
neither (24% to 11%).
Respondents were also asked whether they thought a range of other applications
were a positive or negative use of nanotechnology using a 0-10 scale where 0 is an
extremely negative use and 10 is an extremely positive use. As Figure 26 shows, for
most of the applications between a third and half of respondents were unable to say if
they were positive or negative uses. For ‘miniaturised and undetectable surveillance
devices’, this was close to eight in ten respondents. Among those who were able to
say, the most positive ratings were reported in relation to applications that have clear
environmental or health benefits, including:

'Implants for diabetics that monitor sugar levels and deliver insulin as required’
(a mean support rating of 8.6);

'Technology that disassembles and breaks down urban waste and garbage’ (8.4)

'Machines that exist in the blood stream to clear arterial clots or cancer cells’
(8.4); and
70
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology

'Filters that can control pollutants from entering the environment’ (8.3).
Figure 26. Attitudes towards other applications of nanotechnology
Q9i What degree do you feel that it is a negative or a positive use of nanotechnology? Filter: 2012 only
AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 153 to 607; Total n = 1000
Responses were far more divided in relation to:

'Socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell less’
(a mean of 6.0);

'Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods’ ( a mean of
5.8); and

'Miniaturised and undetectable surveillance devices’ (a mean of 4.8).
A different scale was used for these questions in 2011. Nevertheless, support for uses
of nanotechnology were in a roughly similar order, with technology that breaks down
urban waste (89% feeling positive), pollutant controlling filters (88%) and implants
for diabetics prompting the highest levels of support (91%). The use of nanoparticles
in food (34% positive) and miniaturised surveillance devices (35%) achieved the
lowest levels of support.
Notably, there were some differences by location with Victorians less likely to say the
most of the applications were positive uses of nanotechnology compared to other
Australians. Queenslanders and ACT residents were relatively more supportive of
bandages using nano silver. Queensland residents were also more likely to support
miniaturised surveillance systems – although support across the board was moderate
(Table 27).
71
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Table 27. Attitudes towards other applications of nanotechnology by state
Average out of 10
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
WA
TAS
ACT
NT
Total
Implants for diabetics that monitor
sugar levels and deliver insulin as
required
8.7
8.4
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.5
9.1
7.2
8.6
Machines that exist in the blood stream
to clear arterial clots or cancer cells
8.6
8.2
8.6
8.1
8.8
8.8
9.4
7.2
8.4
Technology that disassembles and
breaks down urban waste and garbage
8.4
8.2
8.6
8.3
8.8
8.3
9.0
8.0
8.4
Filters that can control pollutants from
entering the environment
8.5
7.9
8.5
8.3
8.5
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.3
Bandages impregnated with
antibacterial nano silver to make them
sterile for a longer time
8.0
7.8
8.3
7.9
8.1
7.9
8.9
5.7
8.0
Sunscreen lotions using
nanotechnology to give lotion
invisibility and higher sun protection
7.6
6.9
7.7
7.1
7.5
7.9
7.0
5.8
7.4
Food packaging that monitors
environmental conditions to prevent
food spoilage
7.1
6.6
7.2
6.7
7.3
6.5
7.4
6.4
7.0
Socks impregnated with antibacterial
nano silver to make the socks smell
less
6.1
5.6
6.4
5.9
5.9
6.4
7.2
6.0
6.0
Using nanoparticles to improve
nutrients and vitamins in foods
6.0
5.5
6.2
5.5
6.1
5.2
5.2
6.1
5.8
Miniaturised and undetectable
surveillance devices
5.1
3.9
5.8
5.6
4.9
6.4
5.1
3.3
4.8
Q9i What degree do you feel that it is a negative or a positive use of nanotechnology? (average)
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 153 to 607; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude don’t know responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
A number of differences by gender were observed, with males significantly more
supportive of a number of applications than females, including:

'Filters that can control pollutants from entering the environment’ (a mean
support rating of 8.5 among males compared to 8.2 among females);

'Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food
spoilage’ (7.3 compared to 6.6); and

'Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods’ (6.1 compared
to 5.5).
In terms of age, those aged 51-75 were more supportive than those aged 31-50 of
two health applications: ‘machines that exist in the blood stream to clear arterial clots
or cancer cells’ (8.7 compared to 8.2) and 'bandages impregnated with antibacterial
nano silver to make them sterile for a longer time’ (8.3 compared to 7.7).
72
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Meanwhile, those aged 16-30 were more accepting of several applications including
being more supportive than all other age groups of:

'sunscreen lotions using nanotechnology to give lotion invisibility and higher sun
protection’ (7.9 compared to 7.2 among both other groups), and

'socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell less’
(6.4 compared to 5.9 among both other groups).
Younger respondents (16-30 year olds) were also more supportive than 31-50 yearolds of

‘Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food
spoilage’ (7.3 compared to 6.5) and

‘Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods’ (6.7 compared
to 5.2).
Differences by employment status generally reflected many of the differences by
age.
Those who spoke a language other than English were more likely to be supportive of
'Socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell less’.
As to segment differences, as would be expected, Segment 4 was more likely to think
the applications were positive uses of nanotechnology. Support tended to be lowest
for Segment 2 (as opposed to Segment 1). The applications where there was greatest
variance in terms of whether it was felt that the application was a positive use of
nanotechnology were:

Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food spoilage
(Segment 4 highest – average of 7.8 out of 10; Segment 1 lowest - 6.2 out of
10).

Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods (Segment 3
highest - 6.5 out of 10; Segment 1 lowest – 5.1 out of 10).
Table 28. Attitudes towards other applications of nanotechnology by
segment
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
Implants for diabetics that monitor
sugar levels and deliver insulin as
required
8.6
8.1
8.7
8.9
8.6
Machines that exist in the blood stream
to clear arterial clots or cancer cells
8.2
7.9
8.9
8.8
8.4
Technology that disassembles and
breaks down urban waste and garbage
8.4
8.0
8.5
9.0
8.4
Filters that can control pollutants from
entering the environment
8.0
7.9
8.6
9.0
8.3
73
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
Bandages impregnated with
antibacterial nano silver to make them
sterile for a longer time
7.7
7.7
8.2
8.8
8.0
Sunscreen lotions using nanotechnology
to give lotion invisibility and higher sun
protection
7.5
6.7
7.7
7.6
7.4
Food packaging that monitors
environmental conditions to prevent
food spoilage
6.2
6.8
7.3
7.8
7.0
Socks impregnated with antibacterial
nano silver to make the socks smell less
5.8
5.6
6.3
6.4
6.0
Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients
and vitamins in foods
5.1
5.4
6.5
6.3
5.8
Miniaturised and undetectable
surveillance devices
5.1
4.3
5.3
4.1
4.8
Q9i What degree do you feel that it is a negative or a positive use of nanotechnology?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 153 to 607; total n = 1000
Section 11
Attitudes towards regulatory
bodies and key players
Respondents were generally unsure whether regulation and safeguards were
keeping up with the pace of development and for the most part felt that the
public was not being kept well informed about nanotechnology.
It is not surprising that the organisations most likely to be trusted to tell
about the risks and benefits were science institutes and organisations such
CSIRO and universities, followed by scientists. Government agencies and
regulators rounded out the top three.
As to the perceptions of the level of expertise. Again science institutes and
scientist were the top of the list with a noticeable gap between the top two
and other organisations.
Testing of all products and regulating labels of products using
nanotechnology were deemed the most important activities that government
should allocate budget towards, although all tasks with the exception of
providing funding to private enterprises to develop nanotechnology.
11.1
Perceptions of regulatory bodies
Overall there was low agreement that ‘the general public is being kept well informed
about nanotechnology’, with over half (55%) of respondents providing responses at
the bottom end of the scale (0-3), making an average agreement rating of 3.4.
Most respondents were fairly ambivalent towards the statement ‘nanotechnology
regulation and safeguards are keeping up with the development of nanotechnology’,
with the majority providing responses of 4-6, resulting in an average rating of 5.1.
Notably, close to half of respondents were not able to say whether they agreed or
74
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
disagreed with this statement which suggests there is a low awareness of what
regulations and safeguards there are in the first place. (See Figure 27).
Figure 27. Attitudinal statements regulation
Q11a D E To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements (Regulation) (Average) by
Segment
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 528 to 912; total n = 1000
As to demographic differences - males were slightly but significantly more likely to
think the public was well informed (3.5 out of 10 vs. 3.2 for females). Those who
spoke languages other than English were also more likely to agree that safeguards
kept up with developments in technology than those who only spoke English (5.8 vs.
4.9).
Looking at differences between the segments, Segment 2 were least likely to agree
that regulation and safeguards were keeping up with developments with Segment 3
the most likely to think it was keeping up with the pace of change. It is perhaps not
surprising that Segment 1, with the lowest level of awareness of nanotechnology,
were the least likely to agree that the public was being kept well informed about
nanotechnology.
Although scores were low across the board, Segment 4 was the most likely to think
the public was being well informed. However, it should be noted that Segment 4 were
more likely than other segments to have a wide range of information sources if they
were to look for information on emerging technologies such as nanotechnology (See
Section 12) so it is likely they are more aware of where to access the information that
is being provided by the government than other segments.
75
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Table 29. Attitudinal statements about nanotechnology – regulation by
segment
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n = 138
n = 128
n = 150
n = 94
n = 528
Nanotechnology regulation and safeguards are
keeping up with the development of
nanotechnology
5.4
4.5
5.4
5.0
5.1
The general public is being kept well informed
about nanotechnology
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.7
3.4
Q11a D E To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements (Regulation) (Average) by
Segment
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 528 to 912; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude don’t know responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
11.2
Trust in key groups
The supplementary online survey were asked the degree to which respondents
trusted what a range of groups said about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology
on a scale where 0 is do not trust at all and 10 is trust completely. Results are
detailed in Figure 28.
Figure 28. Trust in key groups
Q19i (Online) How much trust do you place on what the following groups tell you about the risks and
benefits of nanotechnology
Filter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 882 to 932; total n = 1000
Levels of trust were not extremely high for any of the organisations, but was highest
in relation to ‘Science institutes such as CSIRO and universities’ (average rating of 7.1
76
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
out of 10, with 67% providing a rating of 7-10), followed by ‘scientists’ (6.6 out of
10).
Trust in all other organisations was more dispersed, with respondents more likely to
provide moderate ratings of 4-6 in relation to:

‘Government agencies or regulators’ (an average rating of 5.4);

‘Non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups’
(5.3);

‘Industry associations’ (4.6); and

‘Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products’ (4.2).
Levels of trust were lowest in relation to the ‘mass media’ (3.5 out of 10).
The same question was asked in 2011 but a different scale was used and there has
been some change in the order of organisations in terms of trust. While science
institutes followed by ‘scientists’ were the most trusted in 2011, ‘business leaders’
followed by ‘manufactures and distributors of consumer products’ were the least
trusted.
The order of the organisations from most trusted for delivering information about
nanotechnology to least trusted did not generally vary by demographics, but there
were some significant differences in terms of individual levels of trust for several
organisations.
In regards to gender, males were more trusting on average than females of many
organisations, specifically:

‘Science Institutes and organisations’ (a mean trust rating of 7.3 compared to
6.9);

‘Industry associations’ (4.8 compared to 4.3);

‘Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products’ (4.5 compared to 3.8);
and

'Mass media’ (3.8 compared to 3.3)
Given that males are more supportive of nanotechnology in general than females (see
Figure 15, this is not a surprising finding.
Trust also appeared to decrease with age, in line with decreasing support for
nanotechnology in general.
Those aged 51-75 were less likely to trust:

'Non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups’ (4.9
compared to 5.5 among 16-30 year-olds and 5.4 among 31-50 year-olds);

'Industry associations’ (4.2 compared to 5.0 out of 10 among 16-30 year-olds);
77
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology

'Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products’ (3.9 compared to 4.5
among 16-30 year-olds); and

'Mass media’ (3.1 compared to 3.7 among 31-50 year-olds).
Differences by employment status generally reflected differences by age, with the
currently employed more trusting of a range of sources. However, those who were
retired or pensioners were more trusting of all other groups in relation to ‘science
institutes’ (mean of 7.5).
Those with children under 10 at home were less trusting of ‘science institutes’
(6.8) but more trusting of the ‘mass media’ (3.8).
Respondents who spoke a language other than English were more trusting of ‘nongovernment organisations and community advocacy groups’ (5.7 compared to 5.2)
and the ‘mass media’ (4.5 compared to 3.4).
There were no significant differences by location.
Again while the order of the organisations did not differ greatly, the segment results
demonstrate the level of cynicism that is held by Segment 2. Ratings of trust tended
to be lowest for this segment for all the organisations. Trust in science institutes and
scientists were also relatively lower for Segment 1 than for the two ‘pro science’
segments. Unlike Segment 3 and 4, for Segments 1 and 2, non-government
organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups came third in the list of
organisations.
Notably, although the trust was low for mass media as a source of information,
Segment 3 were the most likely of the four segments to trust in what the mass media
told them of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology.
On the other hand, trust Government agencies or regulators was highest amongst
Segment 4 respondents.
Table 30. Trust in key groups by segment
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=215
n=234
n=247
n=154
n=850
Science Institutes and organisations
such as CSIRO and universities
6.6
6.6
7.5
7.9
7.1
Scientists
6.2
6.2
7.0
7.4
6.6
Government agencies or regulators
5.2
4.9
5.6
6.2
5.4
Non-government organisations or NGO’s
and community advocacy groups
5.5
5.1
5.3
5.1
5.3
Industry associations
4.5
4.3
4.8
4.8
4.6
Manufacturers and distributors of
consumer products
4.3
3.8
4.3
4.4
4.1
Mass media
3.9
3.2
3.7
3.2
3.5
Q19i (Online) How much trust do you place on what the following groups tell you about the risks and
benefits of nanotechnology (Average) by Segment
78
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Filter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 875 to 925; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude don’t know responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
11.3
Perceptions of expertise of key groups
The supplementary online survey respondents were also asked the extent to which
they thought the same groups had the expertise necessary to talk about the risks
and benefits of nanotechnology. Results are outlined in Figure 29.
Overall, ‘science institutes’ were seen to have the most expertise, followed by
‘scientists’ (7.6 and 7.4 respectively). Respondents were more moderate in their
agreement that ‘government agencies or regulators’ (5.5) and NGOs and community
advocacy groups (5.0) had the expertise. Respondents were more likely to provide
low agreement ratings (between 0-3) than high (7-10) in relation to ‘industry
associations’ (average of 4.9) and ‘manufactures and distributors of consumer
products’ (5.0).
The majority (59%) provided low agreement ratings (0-3) that ‘mass media’ has the
expertise to talk about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology’, resulting in an
average agreement rating of 3.0.
Figure 29. Perceptions of expertise of key groups
Q19ii (Online) To what extent would you say that the following groups have the expertise to tell you about
the risks and benefits of nanotechnology? Filter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base
n = from 878 to 920; total n = 1000
In terms of gender, males were significantly more likely to agree that ‘manufactures
and distributors of consumer products’ (4.8 compared to 4.3) and the ‘mass media’
(3.2 compared to 2.8) have the relevant expertise.
79
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Age also influenced agreement that the groups have the expertise to talk about
nanotechnology, with the oldest group (51-75 years of age) less likely to agree in
relation to:

‘NGOs and community advocacy groups’ (4.7 compared to an average of 5.0);

‘Industry associations’ (4.5 compared to 5.3 among 16-30 year-olds);

‘Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products’ (4.3 compared to 4.7
among both other age groups; and

‘Mass media’ (2.7 compared to an average of 3.0).
A similar pattern was seen in relation to employment status, with the employed
more likely to agree that most organisations have the expertise to talk about
nanotechnology.
In terms of location, respondents in NSW were less likely to agree that ‘scientists’
had the expertise than those in other states (7.2 compared to 7.8) and those in SA
were less likely than those in other states to agree that science institutes had the
expertise (7.0 compared to 7.6).
As with levels of trust, Segment 2 had the lowest opinion of the level of expertise
from all organisations of the four segments. Segment 1’s opinion of the level of
expertise from science institutes and scientists was relatively lower than the other
segments. However, their opinion of NGOs was highest of the segments. They were
also had the highest opinion of the level of expertise held the in the media which
would suggest, if any group was to listen to good or bad news stories on
nanotechnology, that Segment 1 would be the most likely to be swayed by these
stories.
As would be expected for both Segment 3 and 4, opinions of the levels of expertise
held by science Institutes, scientists, and government agencies or regulators were all
significantly higher than for the other two segments.
Table 31. Expertise of key groups
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=216
n=231
n=252
n=150
n=849
Science Institutes and organisations such
as CSIRO and universities
7.2
7.0
7.9
8.4
7.6
Scientists
7.1
7.1
7.7
8.1
7.5
Government agencies or regulators
5.6
4.9
5.8
5.9
5.5
Non-government organisations or NGO’s
and community advocacy groups
5.3
4.8
5.1
4.8
5.0
Industry associations
4.9
4.6
5.1
5.0
4.9
Manufacturers and distributors of
consumer products
4.7
4.3
4.7
4.5
4.5
Mass media
3.7
2.7
3.1
2.2
3.0
80
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Q19ii (Online) To what extent would you say that the following groups have the expertise to tell you about
the risks and benefits of nanotechnology (Average) by Segment
Filter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 870 to 912
11.4
Importance of allocating budget resources to
nanotechnology development and regulation
Supplementary online respondents were asked how important they believed it was
that government agencies allocated budget resources to different forms of
nanotechnology regulation and development activities on a scale where 0 was ‘not
important at all’ and 10 was ‘critical’. Results can be seen in Figure 30.
Figure 30. Importance of allocating budget resources to nanotechnology
development and regulation
Q17i How important do you believe it is that government agencies allocate budget resources to the
following…? Please use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is not important at all and 10 is critical.
Support was high for almost all forms of regulation and development, with the
exception of ‘provide funding to private enterprises to develop nanotechnology’ (a
mean support rating of 5.9). The three forms of investment seen as most important
were all forms of regulation, specifically:

‘Require testing of all products using nanotechnology’ (7.9);

‘Regulate labelling of products using nanotechnology’ (7.7); and

‘Monitor nanotechnology developments’ (7.7).
Results seen in 2011 were relatively similar, with high support for all forms of
investment except providing funding to private enterprises, although a different scale
was used. There was some movement in the top three areas of investment, with
81
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
‘provide regular information to the general public about nanotechnology’, ‘monitor
nanotechnology developments’ and ‘require testing of all nanoproducts for safety’ the
most important, respectively, in 2011.
There were no significant differences by gender. However, in terms of age, 51-75
year-olds rated all forms of investment in nanotechnology regulation and
development significantly higher than those aged 16-30.
A similar result was seen in terms of employment status, with those who were
retired or pensioners rating investment in almost all forms as significantly more
important than all others, and those who were employed rating almost all forms as
significantly less important (with the exception of providing funding to public
institutions). Further, those engaged in ‘home duties’ rated the importance of
investment in regulating labelling and providing regular information to the general
public higher than all other groups (8.1 compared to an average of 7.6 and 8.0
compared to 7.5 respectively).
Those without children under 10 at home rated investment in two forms of
regulation significantly higher than those with: ‘require testing of all products using
nanotechnology’ (8.0 compared to 7.7) and ‘monitor nanotechnology developments’
(7.8 compared to 7.4).
Further, those who spoke a language other than English at home rated
investment in ‘require testing of all products using nanotechnology’ (7.4 compared to
8.0), ‘monitor nanotechnology developments’ (7.3 compared to 7.8) and ‘provide
regular information to the general public about nanotechnology’ (7.2 compared to
7.7) significantly lower than those who did not speak a language other than English at
home.
As to location, those living outside capital cities rated the importance of investment
in monitoring products for the presence of nanoparticles significantly higher than
those who lived in capital cities (7.6 compared to 7.2). Those residing in Victoria also
saw a number of investment priorities as more important than all others, specifically
requiring testing (8.2 compared to an average of 7.8), regulating labelling (7.9
compared to an average of 7.6) and regulating development (7.7 compared to an
average of 7.3).
Not surprisingly, given the results related to trust, when looking at the segment
breakdown, we find that Segment 2 were least favourable towards allocating budget
to all tasks relative to the other segments. For most of the activities listed, it was
Segment 3 that provided the highest support for allocating towards the tasks.
Segment 4, on the other hand, were most likely of the segments to be favour of the
government allocating budget towards providing funding to public institutions, like
universities, to research nanotechnology; to monitoring nanotechnology
developments and providing funding to private enterprises to develop
nanotechnology. Given their support and interest in technological advancement, this
is not a surprising result.
82
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Table 32: Importance of allocating budget resources to nanotechnology
development and regulation by segment
Average out of 10
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n=214
n=228
n=240
n=143
n=825
Require testing of all products using
nanotechnology
7.9
7.2
8.4
8.2
7.9
Monitor nanotechnology developments
7.6
7.1
8.1
8.2
7.7
Regulate labelling of products using
nanotechnology
7.7
7.2
8.1
7.7
7.7
Provide regular information to the
general public about nanotechnology
7.8
7.0
8.0
7.6
7.6
Provide funding to public institutions,
like universities, to research
nanotechnology
7.2
6.7
8.0
8.3
7.5
Regulate the development of
nanotechnology
7.6
6.8
7.9
7.3
7.4
Monitor products for the presence of
nanoparticles
7.4
6.9
7.8
7.2
7.4
Provide funding to private enterprises to
develop nanotechnology
5.9
5.2
6.4
6.4
5.9
Q17i (Online) How important do you believe it is that government agencies allocate budget resources to the
following (Average)
Filter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 872 to 915; total n = 1000
Note: Means exclude don’t know responses
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Section 12
Seeking information about new
technologies
While it was just as likely as unlikely that respondents would have looked for
information about new technologies before the survey, it seems that asking
questions about nanotechnology had piqued respondents’ interest with an
increase in reported likelihood to seek information compared to before doing
the survey.
The internet was by far the most popular source of information on new
technologies. Among those who would use the internet, they were most
likely conduct a Google search. Segment 4 respondents, those who were
most supportive of scientific advances, were notably more likely to cast a
wide net to seek information.
All respondents in the main telephone survey were asked what the likelihood was that
they would have sought information about new technologies such as nanotechnology,
before they had completed the survey. As shown in Figure 31, results were varied. A
similar proportion said that it was unlikely (46%, including 27% ‘not likely at all’ and
19% ‘somewhat likely’) and likely they would have sought information about
nanotechnology before the survey (42% including 27% ‘somewhat likely’ and 15%
‘very likely’).
83
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 31. Likelihood of seeking information before and after survey
Q20i What is the likelihood that you would have sought information about new technologies such as
nanotechnology prior to today?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 964 to 981; total n = 1000
Respondents were also asked what the likelihood was that they would seek
information about new technologies such as nanotechnology in the future. Also
outlined in Figure 31, the proportion saying they would be likely to seek information
after the survey was almost double the proportion who said it was likely they would
have done so in the past (80% compared to 42%) – suggesting that interest had
been piqued by the completing survey.
In relation to gender, females were significantly more likely to say that they were
‘not likely at all’ (32% compared to 22%) and ‘somewhat unlikely’ (22% compared to
16%) to have sought information than males prior to the survey. There was no
difference in regards to gender on this measure in relation to future intentions.
When the data is analysed by age it emerges that older people were also significantly
more unlikely to have sought information compared to other age groups (52%
unlikely among 51-75 year-olds compared, to 39% among 16-30 year-olds). As to
future intentions, there was some older respondents (51-75) were still more likely say
they would be unlikely to do so and those aged 31-50 less likely to say they would be
would not seek information (16% compared to 10%).
Employment status was also correlated with likelihood of having sought information
in the past, with those who were employed significantly more likely to have done so,
while those who were retirees/pensioners or responsible for ‘home duties’ less likely
(46% compared to 34% and 22%, respectively) to have sought information.
84
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Further, those who spoke a language other than English at home were
significantly more likely to say ‘very likely’ than those who did not (22% compared to
14%).
Those who lived in a capital city were also significantly more likely to say they were
likely to have sought information than those living in non-capital cities (45%
compared to 38%).
There were clear differences in terms of the likelihood of seeking information
according for each segment. As would be expected, the likelihood to have sought
information about was greatest for Segment 4 for both before and after the survey. It
was significantly lower for Segment 1. All segments reported an increased interest to
varying degrees (See Table 33).
Table 33. Likelihood of seeking information before and after survey – by
segment
Column %
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
Segment 4
n=272
n=256
n=296
n=176
30
42
40
67
77
78
81
86
Prior to the survey
Somewhat likely/Very likely
Following the survey
Somewhat likely/Very likely
Q20i What is the likelihood that you would have sought information about new technologies such as
nanotechnology prior to today? Q20ii What is the likelihood that you would seek information about new
technologies such as nanotechnology in the future?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 964 to 981; total n = 1000
Potential sources of information
Those who said it was somewhat or very likely that they would have sought out
information about new technologies (including nanotechnologies) in the past or future
were asked, unprompted, where they would go to look for this information. Multiple
responses were permitted. As illustrated in Figure 32, the vast majority said they
would seek information by ‘searching the internet’ (90%). Around one-in-ten would
get their information from ‘press/newspapers’ (14%), ‘science magazines’ (11%),
word of mouth (10%), television (9%) and ‘books’ (9%).
Figure 32. Potential sources of information
%
Searching the internet
90
Press/newspapers
14
Science magazines
11
Word of mouth
10
Television
9
Books
9
85
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
%
Literature/academic journals/libraries
6
Don’t know/Can’t say
5
Government websites
3
Radio
3
Scientists presenting information on nanotechnology
2
University/university website
2
Literature/academic journals/libraries
2
Government agencies or regulators
1
Manufacturers or product distributors and their nanotechnology information
1
Teachers/lecturers/school
1
Businesses
1
Social networking sites i.e. Twitter, Facebook, blogs
1
Science museums and Science Centres
1
Public displays or events that allow people to discuss nanotechnology and ask questions
1
Product information labels
1
Other
14
Q20a and b When you want to find out more about new developments such as nanotechnology, where
would you go to look for information?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 812; total n = 1000
There were some gender differences with females more likely to mention word of
mouth (13%) and television (11%) compared to males (6% and 7% respectively).
Not surprisingly, those aged 16-30 were most likely to list searching the internet
(94% compared to 85% of 51-75 year olds). Older respondents were also more likely
to rely on press and newspapers (20%) and television (15%) as sources.
As to differences by segment, while the internet was the main source for all, those
who were members of Segment 4 were much more likely to have listed science
magazines as a source (21%). Segment 1, with their relatively lower awareness, were
more likely than other segments to rely on television for information (13%).
Internet searches
Those respondents who said they would search the internet to find information about
new developments such as nanotechnology were asked what sites they would use,
and multiple responses were permitted, with results illustrated in Figure 33.
‘General Google search’ was by far the most common response, mentioned by over
four fifths (81%) of respondents. Around a fifth (19%) mentioned ‘other specific
sights’ (e.g. yahoo), while 14% said ‘science websites’ and one in ten (11%) said
‘Wikipedia’.
86
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Figure 33. Internet sources
Q21 If you search the internet, what sites would you most use to find information about nanotechnology?
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only AND Likely to look up info before survey or in the future; Weighted to
population; base n = 723
Younger respondents were more likely to say they would look on ‘Wikipedia’ (18%
compared to the average of 8%), while older respondents were more likely to say
‘other specific sites’ (24% compared to an average of (17%). Findings by
employment status also reflected age.
Those living outside of capital cities were more likely than those in capital cities to say
they would look for information on ‘other specific sights’ (26% compared to 17%),
while those in Victoria were more likely to do a Google search (88% compared to
79%) and those in NSW were more likely to look on government websites (13%
compared to 6%).
The analysis by segments showed that the segment with the most reported
knowledge of nanotechnology, Segment 4, was less likely to say they would conduct a
‘Google search’ and were more likely to list other specific sites, as well as science
websites, Wikipedia, government and university websites than other segments (See
Table 34).
87
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Table 34. Internet sources by segment
Column %
Segment
1
Segment
2
Segment
3
Segment
4
Total
n =181
n =185
n =220
n =127
n =713
General Google search
83
81
85
71
81
Other specific sites
16
19
17
31
19
Science websites
9
13
12
21
14
Wikipedia
5
13
11
16
11
Government websites
6
8
7
13
8
University websites
0
3
5
7
4
News media sites
1
2
2
7
3
CSIRO website
1
2
3
6
3
Academic article search engine
1
2
3
4
2
You tube
1
2
1
0
1
As many sites as possible
2
0
1
1
1
NGO and Community advocacy websites
1
2
0
2
1
Regulator websites
2
1
0
1
1
Medical sites
1
0
0
1
1
Would not search the internet
1
0
0
1
1
Don't know/unsure
3
0
1
0
1
Other
3
3
1
1
2
Q21 If you search the internet, what sites would you most use to find information about nanotechnology?
by Segment
Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 713; total n = 1000
Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category
Section 13
Implications of the research

While awareness of nanotechnology is high, there are relatively low levels of
underpinning knowledge. This lack of knowledge does not seem to have
translated into negative sentiment in the same was as has been seen for other
emerging technologies (for example genetically modified foods).

In terms of information channels that may influence opinion of emerging
technology, it is interesting to note the particularly low ratings of mass media
agencies.

Attitudes toward nanotechnology are generally positive, but there is also some
desire for additional information and appropriate product labelling. This stated
desire should be viewed in the context that a few survey participants say they
always read product labelling or have sought information on enabling
technologies in the past.
88
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology

As segmentation analysis clearly shows, distinct attitudinal groupings exist
within the community each with differing appetites for information about science
and technology, and nanotechnology in particular. Consideration should be
given to developing a deeper understanding of these segments, their underlying
motivations, and the triggers that might move an individual to a higher level of
engagement.

Segment 4 appears to be made up of well informed advocates for science and
technology and specific biotechnological applications.

Males are consistently more positive with regard to biotechnology and specific
applications. While more research is required to understand the reasons for this
consideration should be given to developing gender tailored communication and
engagement strategies to reach women.
Appendices
Demographics
Telephone survey respondents
Please note the following results are unweighted
Q23i Age
%
n
16-17 years old
5
50
18 – 20 years
7
66
21 – 30 years
12
120
31 – 40 years
20
201
41 – 50 years
20
202
51 – 60 years
14
137
61 – 70 years
16
164
71 – 75 years
6
60
100
1000
%
n
Sydney
21
209
Other New South Wales
11
112
Melbourne
19
189
6
61
Brisbane
11
105
Other Queensland
10
96
6
56
Total
SQ1 Location
Other Victoria
Adelaide
89
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
%
n
Other South Australia
2
18
Perth
8
81
Other WA
2
24
Hobart
1
6
Other Tasmania
2
17
Canberra / ACT
2
17
Darwin
0
3
Other Northern Territory
1
6
%
n
Capital city
67
666
Non capital city
33
334
100
1000
%
n
NSW
32
321
VIC
25
250
QLD
20
201
SA
7
74
WA
11
105
TAS
2
23
ACT
2
17
NT
1
9
100
1000
%
n
Male
51
512
Female
49
488
100
1000
Capital city vs. non-capital city
Total
Q28i State
Total
Q28 Gender
Total
SQ4 Do you have a landline phone at home that you use for phone calls (not just the
internet)?
Landline at home
Mobile only household
%
n
94
944
6
56
90
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
%
n
100
1000
%
n
Employed full time
44
439
Employed part time
13
129
Retired or Pensioner
19
186
Home duties
5
48
School or secondary student
5
51
TAFE or university student
9
89
Unemployed
3
26
Other
1
6
1
5
2
21
Subtotal - Employed
59
589
Subtotal - Student
14
140
100
1000
Total
Q24 Employment status
Refused
Self employed
Total
Q25 Have you undertaken a science subject at university or TAFE; or have links to
science through friends or through your work?
%
n
High school/senior secondary school only
8
83
TAFE studies
5
45
University - undergraduate
22
223
University – post graduate
8
80
Friends involved in science and technology
30
303
Work in science and technology field
18
184
None – no involvement in science
40
398
Subtotal - Higher education or work in science and technology
33
325
Subtotal – No involvement or have friends involved in science and
technology
70
701
100
1000
Total
Q27 Do you usually speak a language other than English when at home?
%
n
Yes
13
129
No
87
871
0
0
Unsure/Don’t know
91
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Total
%
n
100
1000
Q29 Are there children under 10 years of age living in your household?
%
n
Yes
24
243
No
76
757
100
1000
%
n
Sydney
21
205
Other New South Wales
11
110
Melbourne
19
185
6
60
Brisbane
10
101
Other Queensland
11
109
Adelaide
6
60
Other South Australia
2
18
Perth
8
79
Other WA
2
22
Hobart
1
10
Other Tasmania
1
11
Canberra / ACT
2
22
Darwin
1
6
Other Northern Territory
0
2
100
1000
%
n
NSW
32
315
VIC
25
245
QLD
21
210
SA
8
78
WA
10
101
Total
Demographics (Online survey respondents)
Please note the following results are unweighted
SQ1 Location
Other Victoria
Total
SQ1 Location - State
92
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
%
n
TAS
2
21
ACT
2
22
NT
1
8
100
1000
%
n
Capital city
67
668
Non capital city
33
332
100
1000
%
n
Male
49
492
Female
51
508
100
1000
%
n
16-17 years old
3
25
18 – 20 years
2
22
21 – 30 years
19
185
31 – 40 years
20
195
41 – 50 years
20
204
51 – 60 years
17
165
61 – 70 years
17
170
71 – 75 years
3
34
100
1000
Total
SQ1 Capital city vs. non-capital city
Total
SQ2 Gender
Total
SQ3 Age
Total
SQ4 Do you have a landline phone at home that you use for phone calls (not just the
internet)?
%
n
Landline at home
81
809
Mobile only household
19
191
100
1000
Total
Q21i Are there children under 10 years of age living in your household?
93
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
%
n
Yes
28
278
No
72
722
Total
100
1000
Q23 What is the highest level of education you have ever attempted, whether or not
you finished?
%
n
No formal schooling
0
2
Primary school
1
6
Some high school
4
44
Year 10/4th Form
7
68
Year 11/5th Form
4
43
Year 12/6th Form
13
131
Technical school, commercial college or TAFE
30
299
University degree or diploma (undergraduate or postgraduate)
40
398
1
9
100
1000
%
n
Employed full time
37
365
Employed part time
18
176
Retired or Pensioner
19
193
Home duties
11
114
School or secondary student
3
26
TAFE or university student
5
46
Unemployed
4
43
Other
2
22
1
6
1
9
55
550
7
72
100
1000
%
n
95
950
Something else (Please specify)
Total
Q23i Which of the following best describes you…?
Refused
Self employed
Subtotal - Employed
Subtotal - Student
Total
Q24 Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?
No
94
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
%
n
5
50
100
1000
Yes
Total
Q25 Do you speak any language other than English in your home?
%
n
Yes
11
108
No
89
892
0
0
100
1000
Unsure/Don’t know
Total
Questionnaires
Community Attitudes to Nanotechnology Questionnaire
(Telephone)
Introduction
Hello, my name is [INTERVIEWER] and I’m calling from Iview.
We are conducting a short telephone survey on behalf the Australian Government
about public opinion towards science and technology. It will help governments in
Australia make decisions about scientific research We are not trying to sell you
anything; and there are no right or wrong answers. We’re just interested in your
opinions. The survey will take around 19 minutes. If you participate, the information
you provide will be used only for research purposes.
[IF LANDLINE]
Can I please speak to the youngest male in the household aged over 16?
[IF NO MALES OVER 16] Can I please speak to the youngest female over the age of
16?
[IF MOBILE]
Will you be willing to take part?
YES
1
CONTINUE
NO
2
ASK TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE ELSE 16 YEARS OR OLDER IN HOUSEHOLD WHO MAY BE
INTERESTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE WITH THANKS.
IF TIME IS INCONVENIENT:
Arrange call back.
IF CLIENT QUERIED:
95
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
I’m sorry, I can’t tell you the client’s name until the end of the survey, because it
might affect the way you answer the questions, but I will be able to tell you at the
end.
IF QUERIED ABOUT BONA FIDES OF RESEARCH:
I can provide the names of people who will verify the legitimate nature of this
research project. The first is the Australian Market and Social Research Society
enquiry line on 1300 36 4830. The second is the Project Manager at Ipsos Social
Research Institute, Julie Young, on (03) 9946 0888.
IF QUERIED ABOUT HOW NUMBER WAS SOURCED:
We are contacting people using numbers generated randomly by a computer.
IF THE INTERVIEW WILL BE MONITORED:
My supervisor may be monitoring the interview for quality control purposes. If you do
not wish this to occur, please let me know.
SCREENING
#Q23i. Age# {SINGLE}
[READ OUT APPROPRIATE AGE BRACKETS IF NECESSARY. OBSERVE
QUOTAS.]
15 or under
<DISCONTINUE GO TO TERMINATION SCRIPT>
1
16-17 years old
2
18 – 20 years
3
21 – 30 years
4
31 – 40 years
5
41 – 50 years
6
51 – 60 years
7
61 – 70 years
8
71 – 75 years
9
76 years or over
10 <DISCONTINUE GO TO TERMINATION
SCRIPT >
[DNRO] Refused
11 <DISCONTINUE GO TO TERMINATION
SCRIPT >
#SQ1. Location# {SINGLE}
SQ1. Can you please tell me what state or territory you live in? [CLARIFY IF IN
CAPITAL CITY] – And is that in [CAPITAL CITY] or outside [CAPITAL CITY]?
96
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
[RECORD LOCATION. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]
Sydney
1
Other New South Wales
2
Melbourne
3
Other Victoria
4
Brisbane
5
Other Queensland
6
Adelaide
7
Other South Australia
8
Perth
9
Other WA
10
Hobart
11
Other Tasmania
12
Canberra/ACT
13
Darwin
14
Other Northern Territory
15
#Q26. Gender# {SINGLE}
Q26. RECORD GENDER:
Male
1
Female
2
[TERMINATION SCRIPT IF DOES NOT QUALIFY OR QUOTA EXCEEDED:]
“Unfortunately you’re not one of the people who we need to talk to for this particular
survey. Thanks for being willing to participate.”
<IF MOBILE SAMPLE:>
{SINGLE}
SQ4. Do you have a landline phone at home that you use for phone calls (not just the
internet)?
Yes
1
No
2
Prefer not to say
9
SECTION A: ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
97
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Q1i. How would you say you feel about how science and technology is changing
society on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive?
If you can’t say or don’t know, please just say so. [RECORD 0-10; 99 for Can’t
say/don’t know]
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q1c. For the following statements, can you please tell me how much you agree or
disagree on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly
agree. If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.
So, on a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that…
[RANDOMISE ORDER]
[RECORD 0-10
99 = Can’t say/
Don’t know]
1.
Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it
2.
Science and technology creates more problems than it solves
3.
We depend too much on science and not enough on faith
4.
New technologies excite me more than they concern me
5.
Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest
6.
The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect
7.
Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor
8.
We should use more natural ways of farming
9.
People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
10.
Human activities have a significant impact on the planet
11.
People shouldn’t tamper with nature
12.
I believe that everything in the world is connected
13.
Not vaccinating children puts others at risk
14.
Children must be protected from all risks
SECTION B: AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q3i. How much would you say you personally know about “nanotechnology”?
Would you say… you have not heard of it, OR, you have heard of it but know very
little or nothing about it OR, you know enough about it that you could explain it to a
friend. If you can’t say or don’t know, please just say so …
Have not heard of it
1
Have heard of it but know very little or nothing about it
2
98
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Know what nanotechnology means and how it works
3
Don’t know/can’t say
9
<IF Q3i = 2 OR Q3i = 3>
Q4. In what context have you heard about the term “nanotechnology”?
[UNPROMPTED - DO NOT READ OUT. MULTIPLE RESPONSE.
RECORD FIRST RESPONSE (Q4a), THEN OTHER RESPONSES (Q4b).]
[PROBE IF NECESSARY: Is there anything else?]
Q4a
Q4b
First Mentioned
{Single
Response}
Other Answer
{Multiple
Response}
Micro or small science or technology
1
1
Medical devices
2
2
Miniaturisation
3
3
Computing/the internet
4
4
Implanting devices in the body
5
5
Small robots
6
6
Very small measurements
7
7
Atoms and molecules
8
8
Microchips/microcircuits
9
9
Science fiction/futuristic
10
10
Making things faster or better
11
11
Automatic repair/self replication
12
12
Mobile phones
13
13
Book ‘Prey’/Michael Crichton’s book
14
14
I-Pod Nano product
15
15
Other products branded as “Nano”
16
16
Shampoo products
17
17
Health and safety issues
18
18
Ethical issues
19
19
Sunscreen lotions/sunblock products
20
20
Moisturisers/cosmetics
21
21
Other (SPECIFY)
22
22
23 [GO TO Q6i]
23
24
24
Unsure/Don’t know
Medical applications (general mention/NFI)
99
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Q4a
Q4b
First Mentioned
{Single
Response}
Other Answer
{Multiple
Response}
No others [Q4b only]
25
<IF Q3i = 2 OR Q3i = 3>
{OPEN ENDED}
Q6i. Based on what you know about “nanotechnology”, how would you describe your
attitudes towards it?
[PROBE IF NECESSARY; TO BE CODED]
CODE FRAME:
Positive Comments
Very useful for society as a whole
1
Exciting area
2
Positive – but I need more information about nanotechnology
3
Positive – but more R&D should be conducted
4
Has great potential as long as risks are managed
5
Involves engineering of very small particles
6
Positive – other comments
7
Negative Comments
Nanotechnology was scary/concerning concept
8
Negative – due to health risks
9
Damage to environment risks
10
More biosafety research needed
11
More regulation is needed
12
More transparency of nanotechnology information is needed
13
Negative – other comments
14
Unsure
Unsure – don’t know much about nanotechnology
15
Unsure – sounds too futuristic
16
Unsure – other comments
17
No comment made
18
SECTION C: AWARENESS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
[SAY TO ALL]:
100
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
“I’m going to read you a definition of nanotechnology. You can ask me to repeat these
definitions at any time.”
“Nanotechnology is science at a very small scale. It refers to new devices and
materials with key parts about 10,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair.
Working at this scale allows researchers to create new materials and products such as
making sunscreens that are more transparent or drugs that can target individual
cells”
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q12a. How positive or negative, would you say you feel towards the potential
implications of nanotechnology. Please use a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is extremely
negative and 10 is extremely positive? If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.
[RECORD ANSWER – 99 for Can’t say/don’t know]
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q7ai. Do you know of any products that include nanotechnology or are made with
nanotechnology?
Yes
1 Go to QUESTION 7b
No
2 Go to QUESTION 8a
Unsure/Don’t know
3 Go to QUESTION 8a
IF Q7ai = 1
{MULTIPLE RESPONSE}
Q7b. What products are you aware of?
[UNPROMPTED QUESTION. DO NOT READ OUT.
ALLOCATE ANSWER TO MOST APPROPRIATE ANSWER CODE]
Medical instruments/health diagnostics
1
Computers
2
Telecommunications
3
Space industry
4
Mobile phones
5
Television sets
6
Security/surveillance devices
7
I-Pod Nanotechnology
8
Paint
9
Microchip for pets/Animal tracking for veterinarian or animal protection uses
10
101
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Glazing finishers
11
Lubrication
12
Electronics/Semi-conductors
13
Creams/cosmetics/face creams/moisturisers
14
Measuring temperature
15
Measuring the digestive tract
16
Renewable energy (general mention)
17
Carbon nanotubes
18
Gas Detectors
19
Sunscreen
20
Fibre optics
21
Cochlear Ear Implants
22
Clothing using nanotechnology
23
Shampoo products
24
Drug delivery systems
25
Keyhole surgery systems
26
Other (SPECIFY)
27
Solar (specific mention)
28
Medical applications (general mention NFI)
29
Aware of products but can’t remember specific examples
30
SECTION D: EXTENT OF HEARING ABOUT “NANOTECHNOLOGY”
APPLICATIONS
<ASK ALL>
{MULTIPLE}
Q8a. Have you heard of any of the following uses of nanotechnology?
RANDOMISE AND READ OUT. MULTIPLE RESPONSE
[ASK Q8a and if = 1, ASK Q8b straight after]
{SINGLE}
Q8b. FOR EACH Q8a 1-8 = 1 (AWARE) ASK:
And has what you heard about it been positive, negative, neither, or both? If you are
unsure, please just say so.
102
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Q8a
Q8b
Positive
Negative
Neither
positive
or
negative
Both
positive
and
negative
Unsure
The use of nanoparticles in
sunscreens and cosmetics
1
1
2
3
4
99
Using nanoparticles to improve the
nutritional qualities of food
2
1
2
3
4
99
New drug delivery systems through a
patch on your skin
3
1
2
3
4
99
Nanoparticles in food packaging to
monitor food quality and freshness
4
1
2
3
4
99
Using nano silver which provides
anti-bacterial surfaces in consumer
products such as fridges and
washing machines
5
1
2
3
4
99
Water filtration through nanosized
filters
6
1
2
3
4
99
New solar panels using
nanotechnology
7
1
2
3
4
99
Carbon nanotubes used in
manufacturing
8
1
2
3
4
99
None of the above
9
SECTION E: OPINION ABOUT SPECIFIC NANOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS
<SPLIT SAMPLE – RANDOMLY SELECT 5 OF THE STATEMENTS PER
RESPONDENT>
{SINGLE}
Q9i. For each of the following could you tell me to what degree do you feel that it is a
negative or a positive use of nanotechnology using a 0-10 scale where 0 is an
extremely negative use and 10 is an extremely positive use? If you feel you can’t say
or don’t know, please just say so.
[RANDOMISE ORDER AND READ OUT]
[RECORD 0-10
99 = Can’t say/don’t
know]
A
Implants for diabetics that monitor sugar levels and deliver insulin as
required
B
Machines that exist in the blood stream to clear arterial clots or cancer cells
D
Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods
E
Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food
spoilage
F
Filters that can control pollutants from entering the environment
103
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
[RECORD 0-10
99 = Can’t say/don’t
know]
G
Technology that disassembles and breaks down urban waste and garbage
I
Sunscreen lotions using nanotechnology to give lotion invisibility and higher
sun protection
J
Socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell
less
K
Bandages impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make them sterile
for a longer time
L
Miniaturised and undetectable surveillance devices
SECTION F: PUBLIC OPINION TOWARDS NANOTECHNOLOGY
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q10i. I am going to read out some statements that other people have made about
nanotechnology and I would like you to tell me the extent to which you agree or
disagree using a scale where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree. If you
don’t know or can’t say, please just say so. Do you disagree or agree that…
[RANDOMISE STATEMENTS - READ OUT]
RECORD 0-10
99 = Can’t
say/Don’t
know
A
Nanotechnology applications will have a positive impact on employment and the
economy of Australia
B
I would definitely like to know more about nanotechnology and its potential
applications
C
I still really do not understand what nanotechnology is or how it could be used
D
I believe nanotechnology will improve the future quality of life in Australia
E
It is important for me to know if the products I buy are made with nanotechnology
or include some form of nanotechnology
F
I am concerned about the unexpected risks involved in the use of nanotechnology
G
I am concerned about the health and safety risks of nanotechnology
H
I am concerned about the environmental risks of nanotechnology
J
Only products with nanotechnology of concern should be labelled
K
I always read product labels to see if a product contains nanotechnology
SECTION G: EXAMINATION OF ANY CONCERNS ABOUT NANOTECHNOLOGY
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
104
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Q11a. To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements? Please
use a 0-10 scale where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree. If you can’t
say or don’t know, just say so.
[RANDOMISE STATEMENTS - READ OUT]
RECORD
0-10
99 - Can’t
say/don’t
know
A
Nanotechnology is difficult to understand
B
Because nanotechnology is so new, there might be problems for public safety
C
The new processes of nanotechnology may cause problems for worker safety
Di
The general public is being kept well informed about nanotechnology
Ei
Nanotechnology regulation and safeguards are keeping up with the development of
nanotechnology
F
Product labelling should provide information about any nanotechnology used
Gi
I have concerns about nanotechnology
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q14. On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh
the benefits, the risks are equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the
risks……?
[ROTATE ORDER 1, 2, 3 and 3, 2, 1 (RECORD ORDER)]
The risks of nanotechnology outweigh the benefits
1
The risks of nanotechnology are equal to the benefits
2
The benefits of nanotechnology outweigh the risks
3
Can’t say/don’t know
4
SECTION K: INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q20i What is the likelihood that you would have sought information about new
technologies such as nanotechnology prior to today? Would you say…
Not likely at all
1
Somewhat unlikely
2
Neither likely nor unlikely
3
Somewhat likely
4
Very likely
5
105
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Don’t know/can’t say
99
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q20ii What is the likelihood that you would seek information about new technologies
such as nanotechnology in the future? Would you say…
Not likely at all
1
Somewhat unlikely
2
Neither likely nor unlikely
3
Somewhat likely
4
Very likely
5
Don’t know/can’t say
99
<IF Q20i = 4 OR 5 OR Q20ii = 4 OR 5>
Q20. When you want to find out more about new developments such as
nanotechnology, where would you go to look for information?
[DO NOT READ OUT. RECORD FIRST RESPONSE –SINGLE RESPONSE.
MULTIPLE RESPONSE ALLOWED FOR OTHERS MENTIONED]
Q20a
Q20b
First Mentioned
{Single
Response}
Other Answer
{Multiple
Response}
Press/newspapers
1
1
Television
2
2
Radio
3
3
Word of mouth from family & friends
4
4
Word of mouth from colleagues
5
5
Searching the internet
6
6
Government agencies or regulators
7
7
Government websites
8
8
Science magazines
9
9
Books
10
10
Product information labels
11
11
Scientists presenting information on nanotechnology
12
12
Manufacturers or product distributors and their nanotechnology
information
13
13
Public displays or events that allow people to discuss
nanotechnology and ask questions
14
14
Science museums and Science Centres
15
15
106
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Q20a
Q20b
First Mentioned
{Single
Response}
Other Answer
{Multiple
Response}
Businesses
16
16
Non-government organisations (NGO’s) and community advocacy
groups
17
17
LinkedIn – electronic professional network
18
18
Other (SPECIFY)
19
19
Don’t know/Can’t say
20 [GO TO Q21]
20
Unlikely to look for information about nanotechnology
21 [GO TO Q21]
21
22
22
Social networking sites i.e. Twitter, Facebook, blogs
No others [Q20b only]
23
<IF Q20A = 6 OR Q20B6 = 1>
{MULTIPLE RESPONSE}
Q21. If you search the internet, what sites would you use to find information about
nanotechnology?
[UNPROMPTED QUESTION. DO NOT READ OUT. ]
Wikipedia
1
General Google search
2
Government websites
3
Regulator websites
4
NGO and Community advocacy websites
5
News media sites
6
Science websites
7
Twitter
8
Blogs talking about nanotechnology
9
“Facebook friends”
10
As many sites as possible
11
Other specific sites (SPECIFY)
12
Would not search the internet
13
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q12B. Now we are getting towards the end of the survey, on a scale of 0 to 10 where
0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive, how do you feel towards the
potential implications of nanotechnology? Again, there are no right or wrong answers,
107
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
if you can’t say or don’t know, please just say so. [RECORD ANSWER 0-10 OR 99
FOR CAN’T SAY/DON’T KNOW]
SECTION M: DEMOGRAPHICS
Just a few more questions to help us with our analysis:
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q24. Which of the following best describes you…?
[READ OUT]
Employed full time
1
Employed part time
2
Retired or Pensioner
3
Home duties
4
School or secondary student
5
TAFE or university student
6
Unemployed
7
Other (SPECIFY)
8
Refused (DO NOT READ)
9
<ASK ALL>
{MULTIPLE RESPONSE}
Q25. Have you…. undertaken a science subject at university or TAFE; or do you have
links to science through friends involved in the field science and technology or
through your work?
[PROBE TO CLASSIFY APPROPRIATE RESPONSE]
Educational Study
High school/senior secondary school only
1 [EXCLUSIVE]
TAFE studies
2
University - undergraduate
3
University – post graduate
4
Non-education
Friends involved in science and technology
5
Work in science and technology field
6
None – no involvement in science
7 [EXCLUSIVE]
<ASK ALL>
108
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
{SINGLE}
Q27. Do you usually speak a language other than English when at home?
Yes [SPECIFY]
1
No
2
Unsure/Don’t know
3
Q29. Are there children under 10 years of age living in your household?
No
0
Yes
1
Q30. What is your residential postcode? [RECORD]
<ASK ALL>
Q30a. As part of this study, we may be organising further research sessions with
people about emerging technologies. Would you happy for us to contact you about
taking part in further research?
Yes
1
No
2
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q31. At the completion of this research, the findings will be available online. Would
you be interested us emailing you a link to the results?
[READ OUT:]
If you say yes, your name and contact details will be passed onto the Department of
Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education and will be used only
for the purpose of sending you the results.
Please be assured that your personal details will be treated in strict confidence and
will remain separate to your responses to this survey.
No, I would not be interested
1
Yes, I would be interested in getting the research findings
2
<IF Q30a = 1 OR Q31 = 2>
Q31a. Could I please have your…
[RECORD]
Name:
Email address:
[OPTIONAL]
Confirm email address:
[OPTIONAL]
109
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
[IF Q30a = 1 ONLY ] Contact
phone number:
Now that’s the end of the interview. Thank you very much for your time. This
research is being carried out on behalf of the federal Department of Industry,
Innovation, Science and Research and Tertiary Education. The answers you provided
today will be combined with those of other participants to give the Department a
better understanding of Australians’ views on nanotechnology. If you would like to
know more about emerging technologies further information is available on
www.technyou.edu.au [PRONOUNCED “TECH”,”N”,”YOU” - SPELL OUT WEBSITE
ADDRESS]
Lastly, as part of quality control procedures, someone from our project team may
wish to re-contact you to verify some of the information we just collected. Would that
be okay?
[IF SO, COLLECT FIRST NAME]
Just to remind you, I’m calling from Iview. If you have any queries, you can call the
Australian Market and Social Research Society’s enquiry line on 1300 364 830.
Community Attitudes to emerging technology questionnaire ONLINE
SCREENING
#SQ2. Gender# {SINGLE}
SQ2. Are you…?
[NOTE QUOTAS]
Male
1
Female
2
#SQ3i. Age# {SINGLE}
SQ3i. Approximately, how old are you?
[NOTE QUOTAS]
15 or under
1
16 -17 years old
2
18 – 20 years
3
21 – 30 years
4
31 – 40 years
5
41 – 50 years
6
51 – 60 years
7
61 – 70 years
8
<DISCONTINUE GO TO
TERMINATION SCRIPT>
110
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
71 – 75 years
9
76 years or over
10
<DISCONTINUE GO TO
TERMINATION SCRIPT >
Prefer not to say
11
<DISCONTINUE GO TO
TERMINATION SCRIPT >
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------#SQ1. Location# {SINGLE}
SQ1. Where do you live?
[NOTE QUOTAS]
Sydney
1
Other New South Wales
2
Melbourne
3
Other Victoria
4
Brisbane
5
Other Queensland
6
Adelaide
7
Other South Australia
8
Perth
9
Other WA
10
Hobart
11
Other Tasmania
12
Canberra/ACT
13
Darwin
14
Other Northern Territory
15
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------[TERMINATION SCRIPT IF DOES NOT QUALIFY OR QUOTA EXCEEDED:]
Unfortunately you’re not one of the people who we need to talk to for this particular
survey. Thank you for being willing to participate.
[REDIRECT TO www.technyou.edu.au]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
SQ4. Do you have a landline phone at home that you use for phone calls (not just the
internet)?
111
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Yes
1
No
2
Prefer not to say
9
A. UNDERSTANDING OF TERMINOLOGY
<ASK ALL>
#Q1a. Tell me whether you... # {SINGLE}
Q1a. For the following list of technologies could you please say whether…

you have not heard of it, OR

you have heard of it but know very little or nothing about it OR,

you know enough about it that you could explain it to a friend.
There are no right or wrong answers so If you can’t say or don’t know, please select
‘don’t know’ …
[RANDOMISE ORDER]
Technology
Have not
heard of it
Have
heard of
it, but
know very
little or
nothing
about it
Know
enough
about it
that you
could
explain it
to a friend
Can’t say
/ Don’t
know
i.
Biotechnology
1
2
3
9
ii.
Genetic modification
1
2
3
9
iii.
Cloning human embryos
1
2
3
9
iv.
Cloning of animals
1
2
3
9
v.
Stem cell research
1
2
3
9
vii.
Nanotechnology
1
2
3
9
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<FOR EACH Q1ai- Q1aviii = 2 OR 3 (IF RESPONDENT HAS HEARD OF TECH
ASK) >
{SINGLE}
Q1b. And do you think these technologies will generally

improve our way of life in the future, OR

have no effect, OR

make things worse in the future?
112
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
If you don’t know or can’t say please just say so.
[READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v). PRESERVE ORDER FROM Q1a.]
Technology
Improve our way
of life in the
future
Have no
effect
Make things
worse in the
future
Can’t
say/
Don’t
know
i.
Biotechnology
1
2
3
9
ii.
Genetic modification
1
2
3
9
iii.
Cloning human embryos
1
2
3
9
iv.
Cloning of animals
1
2
3
9
v.
Stem cell research
1
2
3
9
viii.
Nanotechnology
1
2
3
9
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q1c. For the following statements, can you say how much you disagree or agree on a
scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree.
If you can’t say or don’t know, please select ‘don’t know’.
So, on a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that …
[RANDOMISE ORDER – USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 and Don’t
know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Strongly disagree and 10 – Strongly agree]
1.
Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it
2.
Science and technology creates more problems than it solves
3.
We depend too much on science and not enough on faith
4.
New technologies excite me more than they concern me
5.
Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest
6.
The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect
7.
Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor
8.
We should use more natural ways of farming
9.
People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
10.
Human activities have a significant impact on the planet
11.
People shouldn’t tamper with nature
12.
I believe that everything in the world is connected
13.
Not vaccinating children puts others at risk
14.
Children must be protected from all risks
113
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------[PRESENT TO ALL]:
Throughout this survey the terms ‘genetic modification’ or GM and
‘biotechnology’ will be used.
The definitions of these terms are below:

Genetic modification or GM is using laboratory techniques to basically, “cut
and paste” a gene from one living thing to another, or modifying or removing a
gene within an organism.

Biotechnology is using the science of living things and biological processes to
develop or make products. It is broader than genetic modification or GM and
includes other processes that do not change genetic information. It is used in
food production such as culturing yoghurt and brewing beer as well as in
farming and agriculture, and in medical treatments and research.
If you need to remind yourself of the definitions, please hover over the link
at the bottom of each page of this survey.
[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN
WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definitions: Biotechnology and GM
Genetic modification or GM is using laboratory techniques to basically, “cut and
paste” a gene from one living thing to another, or modifying or removing a gene
within an organism.
Biotechnology is using the science of living things and biological processes to
develop or make products. It is broader than genetic modification or GM and includes
other processes that do not change genetic information. It is used in food production
such as culturing yoghurt and brewing beer as well as in farming and agriculture, and
in medical treatments and research. ]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------The following questions relate to biotechnology and GM…
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q16bi. How would you rate your level of support for the use of GM or genetic
modification and other biotechnologies?
Please use a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is completely against it and where 10 is
completely supportive.
If you can’t say or don’t know, please select ‘don’t know’.
114
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Completely
against it
Completely
supportive
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10











Don’t
know
/
Can’t
say

[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN
WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definitions: Biotechnology and GM ]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------D. CONFIDENCE IN FOOD
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q7. Now I’d like you to think about food.
How unwilling or willing would you be to eat the following? Please use a scale of 0-10,
where 0 means you would be extremely unwilling and where 10 means you
would be extremely willing.
If you can’t say or don’t know, please select ‘don’t know’.
[RANDOMISE ORDER – USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 and Don’t
know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Extremely unwilling and 10 – Extremely willing]
i.
Food containing preservatives
ii.
Food grown with the use of pesticides
iii.
Organic food
iv.
Processed foods such as bread or soy milk, that has been made from genetically modified crops
v.
Processed foods such as cakes or biscuits that contain only a small amount of genetically modified
ingredients
vi.
Genetically modified fruit and vegetables
vii.
Meat and other products from animals that have been fed with genetically modified stock feed
viii.
Meat and other products from genetically modified animals
ix.
Meat and other products from cloned animals
x.
Meat and other products from the offspring of cloned animals
[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN
WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definitions: Biotechnology and GM ]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------E. ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS
<ASK ALL>
115
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
{SINGLE}
Q8i. Can you please say how much you disagree or agree with each of the following
statements using a scale where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree.
If you don’t know or can’t say, please select ‘don’t know’.
[RANDOMISE ORDER – USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN WITH 0-10 and
Don’t know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Strongly disagree and 10 – Strongly agree]
Statement
i.
The characteristics of plants and animals should only be changed through traditional breeding
methods
ii.
We should accept some degree of risk from genetic modification if it enhances Australia’s economic
competitiveness
iii.
We should reject genetic modification if it reduces Australia’s economic competitiveness
v.
Australian farms need genetically modified organisms to stay financially viable
vi.
Australian farms need to be free of genetically modified organisms to stay financially viable
xi.
Privacy laws should prevent governments and other organisations from accessing information on
people’s genetic make-up
xiii.
The Australian government should enable the community to participate more in decisions on
biotechnology issues including regulation
xvii.
Commercial use of genetic modification and its products should only be allowed after regulatory
approval
[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN
WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definitions: Biotechnology and GM ]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q9. Please say whether you think each of the following statements is true or false.
If you can’t say, or don’t know, please select ‘don’t know’.
[RANDOMISE ORDER]
Application
True
False
Don’t
know
i.
Most of the processed foods in Australian supermarkets contain
genetically modified ingredients
1
2
9
ii.
Most of the fresh fruit and vegetables grown in Australia are genetically
modified
1
2
9
iii.
Most of the cotton grown in Australia is genetically modified
1
2
9
iv.
Most of the vegetable oils produced in Australia are made from
genetically modified crops
1
2
9
116
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN
WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definitions: Biotechnology and GM ]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{OPEN ENDED – NO CODING REQUIRED}
Q11a. Which organisation or organisations do you believe are responsible for the
regulation of genetic modification and other biotechnologies in Australia?
If you don’t know or can’t say please tick the box below
[PLEASE INCLUDE DON’T KNOW/CAN’T SAY TICK BOX]
CODE FRAME TO USE:
Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ
1
The Office Of The Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR)
2
DAFF Biosecurity or (Department Of Agriculture, Fisheries And Forestry (Daff) Biosecurity ) [FULL
NAME]
3
Biosecurity Australia
4
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)
5
The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
6
National Health And Medical Research Council (NH&MRC)
7
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
8
Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC)
9
Department of Health & Ageing/Department of Health
10
CSIRO
11
Federal Government/ ”The Government” – NFI
12
Local Government – NFI
13
State Government – NFI
14
Other Department/Agency/Body
15
Department Of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
16
None
98
Don’t Know
99
[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN
WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definitions: Biotechnology and GM ]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
117
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
{SINGLE}
Q11c.Have you heard of the following organisations?
[RANDOMISE]
Yes
No
Don’t
know
i.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ
1
0
99
ii.
The Office of The Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR)
1
0
99
iii.
DAFF Biosecurity or (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries And Forestry
Biosecurity )
1
0
iv.
Biosecurity Australia
1
0
99
vii.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC)
1
0
99
viii.
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
1
0
99
99
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<IF Q11c_ii, Q11c_iii, Q11c_iv, Q11c_vii OR Q11c_viii = 1 >
{SINGLE}
Q11di How much trust do you place in the following organisations on a scale
where 0 is do not trust at all and 10 is trust completely?
If you can’t say, or don’t know please select ‘don’t know’.
[PRESERVE ORDER FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION– USE GRID WITH
STATEMENT THEN WITH 0-10 and Don’t know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Do not
trust at all and 10 – Trust completely]
i.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ
ii.
The Office of The Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR)
iii.
DAFF Biosecurity or (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Biosecurity )
iv.
Biosecurity Australia
vii.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC)
viii.
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<IF Q11c_ii, Q11c_iii, Q11c_iv, Q11c_vii OR Q11c_viii = 1 >
{SINGLE}
Q11dii And how much trust do you place on what these organisations tell you about
the risks and benefits of biotechnology on a scale where 0 is do not trust at all and
10 is trust completely?
If you can’t say, or don’t know please select ‘don’t know’.
118
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
[PRESERVE ORDER FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION– USE GRID WITH
STATEMENT THEN 0-10 and Don’t know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Do not trust at
all and 10 – Trust completely]
i.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ
ii.
The Office of The Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR)
iii.
DAFF Biosecurity or (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) Biosecurity )
iv.
Biosecurity Australia
vii.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC)
viii.
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------[PRESENT TO ALL]
Another area of science is nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology is science at a very small scale. It refers to new devices and
materials with key parts about 10,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair.
Working at this scale allows researchers to create new materials and products such as
making sunscreens that are more transparent or drugs that can target individual cells
[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN
WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definition: Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology is science at a very small scale. It refers to new devices and
materials with key parts about 10,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair.
Working at this scale allows researchers to create new materials and products such as
making sunscreens that are more transparent or drugs that can target individual cells
]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q12a. How positive or negative, would you say you feel towards the potential
implications of nanotechnology? Please use a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is extremely
negative and 10 is extremely positive? If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.
Extremely
negative
Extremely
positive
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10











Don’t
know /
Can’t say

[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN Label link as: Definition: Nanotechnology]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------
119
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q19i. How much trust do you place on what the following groups tell you about the
risks and benefits of nanotechnology on a scale where 0 is do not trust at all and 10
is trust completely?
If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.
[RANDOMISE AND USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 – Label: 0 – Do
not trust at all; 10 Trust completely; Can’t say/don’t know]
0-10
99 = Can’t
say/Don’t
know
A
Industry associations
B
Government agencies or regulators
C
Scientists
D
Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products
E
mass media
F
non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups
G
Science Institutes and organisations such as CSIRO and universities
[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN Label link as: Definition: Nanotechnology]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q19ii.And to what extent would you say that the following groups have the
expertise to tell you about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology?
Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is strongly disagree that they have the
expertise and 10 is strongly agree that they have the expertise?
If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.
[RANDOMISE AND USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 – Label: 0 –
Strongly disagree have expertise; 10 Strongly agree have expertise; Can’t
say/don’t know]
120
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
RECORD 010
OR 99 =
Can’t
say/Don’t
know
A
Industry associations
B
Government agencies or regulators
C
Scientists
D
Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products
E
Mass media
F
non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups
G
Science Institutes and organisations such as CSIRO and universities
[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN Label link as: Definition: Nanotechnology]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q17i. How important do you believe it is that government agencies allocate budget
resources to the following…?
Please use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is not important at all and 10 is critical.
If you can’t say or don’t know, please just say so.
[RANDOMISE AND USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 – Label: 0 – Not
important at all; 10 - Critical; Can’t say/don’t know]
0-10
99= Can’t
say/don’t
know
A
Monitor nanotechnology developments
B
Monitor products for the presence of nanoparticles
C
Provide funding to private enterprises to develop nanotechnology
D
Provide funding to public institutions, like universities, to research nanotechnology
E
Provide regular information to the general public about nanotechnology
F
Regulate the development of nanotechnology
G
Require testing of all products using nanotechnology
Hi
Regulate labelling of products using nanotechnology
[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN Label link as: Definition: Nanotechnology]
121
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q22i. We are near the end of the survey now.
What is your level of support for the following science and technology developments?
If for any of the technologies, you are not sure, please just say so.
Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is completely against it and 10 is completely
supportive, how would you say you feel towards:
[RANDMOISE AND USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 – Label: 0 –
completely against it; 10 - completely supportive; Can’t say/don’t know]
[RECORD
0-10
99 = Can’t say
don’t know]
A
Stem cell research
B
Genetically modified foods or GM foods
C
Cloning (including therapeutic cloning)
D
The role of science and technology in addressing climate change
E
Synthetic Biology research
F
Quantum Computing research
G
Nanotechnology
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------I. DEMOGRAPHICS
Finally, just a few questions to ensure that we’ve included a good range of
people in our survey.
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE} #Q21i. Are there children under 10 years of age living in your
household?#
Q21i. Are there children under 10 years of age living in your household?
No
0
Yes
1
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
122
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Q23. What is the highest level of education you have ever attempted, whether or not
you finished? Please select one only
No formal schooling
1
Primary school
2
Some high school
3
Year 10/4th Form
4
Year 11/5th Form
5
Year 12/6th Form
6
Technical school, commercial college or TAFE
7
University degree or diploma (undergraduate or postgraduate)
8
Something else [SPECIFY]
9
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q23i. Which of the following best describes you…? Please select one only
Employed full time
1
Employed part time
2
Retired or Pensioner
3
Home duties
4
School or secondary student
5
TAFE or university student
6
Unemployed
7
Other (SPECIFY)
8
Prefer not to say
9
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q24. Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?
Yes
1
No
0
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q25. Do you speak any language other than English in your home?
123
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
No, English only
0
Yes, [SPECIFY]
1
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q26. What is your residential postcode? [RECORD]
[INCLUDE TICK BOX FOR DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE]
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<ASK ALL>
Q30a. As part of this study, we may be organising further research sessions with
people about emerging technologies. Would you happy for us to contact you about
taking part in further research?
Yes
1
No
2
<ASK ALL>
{SINGLE}
Q30. At the completion of this research, the findings will also be available online.
Would you be interested us emailing you a link to the results?
If you select yes, your name and contact details will be passed onto the Department
of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education and will be used
only for the purpose of sending you the results.
Please be assured that your personal details will be treated in strict confidence and
will remain separate to your responses to this survey.
Yes, I would be interested in getting the research findings
2
No, I would not be interested
1
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------<IF Q30a = 1 OR Q30 = 2>
Q31a. Could you please provide your details below for us to:
<IF Q30a = 1> - Contact you about further research we’re doing about science and
technology
<IF Q30 = 2 > - Send you the results of the research
Name:
Email address (optional):
[OPTIONAL]
124
Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology
Confirm email address
(optional):
[OPTIONAL]
[IF Q30a = 1 ONLY ] Contact
phone number:
Please be assured that your personal details will be treated in strict
confidence and will remain separate to your responses to this survey.
------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] ----------------------------------[CLOSING SCREEN]
That is the end of the survey. Thank you very much for your time.
This research is being carried out on behalf of the federal Department of Industry,
Innovation, Science and Research and Tertiary Education.
The answers you provided today will be combined with those of other participants to
give the Department a better understanding of Australians’ views on biotechnology.
[REDIRECT TO www.technyou.edu.au]
125