SES 0938099
Public perceptions of nanotechnology risk
CalNIN workshop, Sept 25, 2012
CNSI, UCLA
Barbara Herr Harthorn, Director CNS
Theme 7 co-leader, UC CEIN
US National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2011
ELSI (ethical, legal, and societal implications) considerations “are deeply
embedded in the NNI’s commitment to responsible development of
nanotechnology.”
“The NNI seeks to generate ELSI knowledge and insights through:
(1) research in the areas of public perception and understanding
expected benefits, anticipated risks, and safety that can help society
assess potential impacts of nanotechnology and possible responses;
(2) scientific meetings and workshops at the local, state, national and
international levels; and
(3) public engagement activities to identify stakeholder perspectives
on nanoEHS and ELSI issues.”
NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy, 2011: 10
SES 0938099
Mission: Nanotechnology Origins, Innovations, and
Perceptions in a Global Society
CNS-UCSB challenge: How can nanotechnology mature into a
transformative technology, in our rapidly changing international economic,
political & cultural environment?
• Social and environmental sustainability, ‘responsible development’
• Requires many methods, new approaches
• Demonstrate value to the S&T enterprise of understanding and
engaging with social issues
Key factors we focus on:
• Global nano-enterprise (E. Asia, N. Europe, &
Latin America focus)
• Multiple party risk perception
• Modes of dialogue with the public
• Historical contexts for S&T development
NSF: DBI-0830117
Theme 7: Societal Implications, Risk Perception and Outreach
Faculty investigators:
Hilary Godwin, UCLA
Barbara Harthorn, UCSB
J.R. DeShazo, UCLA
Patricia Holden, UCSB
Milind Kandlikar, UBC
Arturo Keller, UCSB
Timothy Malloy, UCLA
Andre Nel, UCLA
Terre Satterfield, UBC
Many reasons for studying nano risk (and
benefit) perception
•
Perceptions drive behavior

best indicator of anticipated behavior
• Not just ignorance or misunderstanding
• Expert risk assessment (nanotox) won’t necessarily change views
• Experts’ judgments affect their decisions and practices
• Anticipate
workers’ views
• Anticipate
communities’ views
• Anticipate
points of convergence/divergence among
different stakeholders
• Vital knowledge
project of engagement and two-way/multi-way
communication
SES 0938099
Formal vs. lay understandings of ‘risk’
Engineering ‘Risk’ = Hazard x Exposure
Lay beliefs are based on more than probabilistic ‘risk’
• Qualitative risk characteristics
• Cultural or political values
• Social amplification (and attenuation) effects, esp.
process through which risk communication takes place
• Trust in risk managers / science
• Past experiences of vulnerability and discrimination
• Perceived benefits also matter!
What factors make novel technological risks
seem less acceptable?
Involuntariness
Inequitable (distribution of risks
and benefits)
Inescapable / many exposed
Unfamiliar / novel
Man-made vs ‘natural’
Irreversible
Invisible
Danger to children
Particular ‘dreaded’ outcomes
(e.g. cancer)
Victims identifiable
Appears poorly understood by
science
Violates ‘dose makes the
poison’
Slovic, P. et al. In Slovic, P (2000) The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan
Awareness of nanotechnology is low:
~ half know ‘nothing at all’
Satterfield, Kandlikar et al., Nature Nanotechnology, 2009
Judgment of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits:
Benefit-centric & high levels of uncertainty
Satterfield, Kandlikar et al, Nature Nanotechnology, 2009
Scientists are
more
optimistic
than the
public about
potential
benefits
Scientists are
less
concerned
about risks
other than
environment
& health
Scheufele et al. 2007
Nature Nano
Willing to purchase?
Interaction of
US public
nanotech
benefit & risk
perceptions
Currall & Lane 2006
Distribution of Perceptions for Different Nanotechnology Applications –
Switzerland
(Source: Siegrist et al, 2007, Risk Analysis, v27, 59-70, n=375 Switzerland)
What has the media had to say about nano?
Public Perception of ENM Environmental Risk: Shaped by Risk
Messages & Environmental Values
Green line: Air,
water and soil
recover easily, are
self-cleaning, mostly
pure, and easy to
control.
Red line: Air, water
and soil recover
poorly, need human
intervention to
become clean, are
mostly contaminated
and difficult to
control.
•
•
•
Stated risk level affects acceptability
Perceived environmental ‘resilience’affects acceptability
Risk uncertaintyreluctant to judge
Satterfield, Pitts, & Harthorn 2012 In preparation
People get sick from a nanoproduct but it is still sold
Trust asymmetry:
Easy to lose, difficult to
recover
A study on nanoparticle safety is
found to rest on fake data
Industries refuse to voluntarily
report nanoparticle toxicity
Government declares no need for
nano safety regulations
A company is fined for failure to
register nano-products
Voluntary program established for industry to
submit sci. data about nano products
An environmental group calls for a complete
ban on selling nano products
Program established to provide consumer
health guidelines for nano products
Satterfield et al. in press 2012
Science& Public Policy
Industry mostly complies with new
regulations to register nano products
Indep. consumer watchdogs will investigate
public complaints ag. nanotech co.s
Decrease trust
Increase trust
Industry is crucial part of picture
US ENM industry survey (n=45, 20% response rate)
• Only 44% have nano-specific EH&S program
• 41% monitor the workplace
• Impediments to having a nano EH&S program?
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
56%
48%
31%
Lack of
information
Lack of
guidance or
regulation
Budget
constraints
Engeman et al 2012 under review
Industry is a crucial part of the responsible development picture. (US survey, n=45
ENM companies, level of agreement with eleven statements re: risk & regulation.
It is reasonable to assume that industries working with nanomaterials will
adapt or alter their safe-handling practices when new hazards are
discovered.
Workplace safety should take priority over scientific and technological
advances.
In the case of nanotechnologies, the benefits of advancements in science
and technology outweigh the risks involved in research, development, and
production.
Businesses are better informed about their own workplace safety needs
than are government agencies.
Employees are ultimately responsible for their own safety at work.
Industries working with nanomaterials can be trusted to regulate the safehandling of these materials.
Waiting until safety studies are complete to commercialize nanotechnology
will deprive society of too many potential benefits.
In my company, we worry that nanotechnologies may encounter
unwarranted public backlash such as that which accompanied genetically
modified foods in Europe.
Voluntary reporting approaches for risk management are effective for
protecting human health and the environment.
Insurers in my industry are increasingly concerned about nano-specific
risks.
Direct involvement of citizens in policy decisions about research and
development of new technologies is beneficial.
Strongly
agree
Agree
Don’t
know
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
In summary
Benefits predominate thus far—what will constrain (other than EHS)? Views
are contingent on:
• Publics’ low familiarity/unformed views
• High uncertainty/need for information (from trusted source)
• Application-specific views
• Media coverage low & mixed message
• Hyping the technology (benefit only information) betrayal effect
• Trust/betrayal (by govt and/or industry; scientists have public trust)
• Inequality/social justice key
• Environmental resilience; intuitive toxicology
• Gender, race, social differences: not a function of ignorance
* Not just a matter of educating re: benefits, rather we need to understand and
accept legitimacy of situated preferences  new collaborative models
* UC CEIN  key such context for collaboration
Thank you.

Many people to acknowledge: Faculty researchers: , Bruce Bimber, Joseph
Conti, Trish Holden, Milind Kandlikar, Nick Pidgeon, Terre Satterfield, ;
postdocs: Gwen D’Arcangelis, Anton Pitts; grads Christian Beaudrie, Mary
Collins, Shannon Hanna, David Weaver.

This work is funded by NSF through cooperative agreements # SES
0531184 and #0938099 to the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at
UCSB; and by NSF & EPA through cooperative agreement #DBI 0830117
to the UC Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology.
Views expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the NSF or EPA.
Novel Tool Development:
California in the Nano Economy Website
SES 0938099
SES 0531184
Nano Value Chain Model/Database Tables
1. Physical Location Information
– Address, City, Postal Code, Phone Number, Latitude/Longitude, & Website(s)
2. General Information
– Firm/Support, Year Established, Employment, Ownership, Sales, Nano-Specific
Focus
3. Products
– Nanomaterials & Products Incorporating Nanomaterials and Equipment
– Materials & Tools Used
4. Relationships
– Customers, Suppliers, Competitors
– Firm Structure: Parent Companies/Subsidiaries, Investors
– Product Development & Research
5. Value Chain Model
– Value Chain Position: Category, Sector, Subsector, Materials
– Supporting Environment
– Value-Adding Activities: R&D, Design, Manufacturing, Distribution, Marketing,
Service
6. Industry Sectors
– Previous Information & Removed Locations
– Previous Physical Address Information
– Locations & Products Removed & Reason
Parts of the Nano Value Chain Model
Value Chain
Nanoscale
Materials
Intermediary
Products
Carbon Nanotubes
Nanoscale
Intermediates
Coatings & Ink
Catalysts
Metal Nanoparticles
Compound Nanoparticles
Nano-Enabled
Final Product
Industries
Sporting Goods
Plastic Materials
Fullerenes
Quantum Dots
Component
Products
Composites
Chemicals
Sensors
Precursor Products
Circuits
Energy Generation/Storage
Displays & Memory
Apparel & Home Goods
Textiles
Tires
Processors
Transportation
Construction/Industrial
Consumer
Goods: NonElectronic
Electronics
& Energy
Electronics
Polymeric Materials
Therapeutic Agents
Personal Care
Other Nanoscale Materials
Drug Carriers
Pharmaceuticals
Medical/Life
Science/Health
Industry Sectors
Tools, Equipment, Software, & Machinery
Production Equipment
Government
& Academia
Laboratories &
Testing Facilities
Analytical Tools
Modeling
Research
Organizations
Industry
Associations
Supporting Environment
Investors
Service
Providers
SES 0938099
SES 0531184
Visual Mapping: Tableau
Occurrences