Federico Neresini
PaSTIS (Padua Science, Technology, Innovation Studies research
unit)
University of Padua – Italy
FIVE YEARS LATER.
TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE SOCIAL
REPRESENTATIONS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY IN
ITALY (2006-2011)
RESEARCH DESIGN and RESULTS
2
DESIGN:
two cross-sectional surveys
sample n = 1.000 both in 2006 and 2011
same questionnaires (with little changes and some
more questions added in the 2011 version)
THREE MAIN RESULTS PRESENTED HERE :
1.
public awareness on nanotechnology
2.
attitudes toward nanotech (also compared to biotech)
3.
factors affecting the attitudes toward nanotech
S.Net 2012
RESULT 1
Public awareness on nanotechnology
3
Have you ever heard about NT
before now?
Have you ever heard about NT before now?
If yes, do you remember where?
No
Yes, but I don’t
remember where
Yes and I
remember where
No
Yes
S.Net 2012
RESULT 1
Public awareness on nanotechnology
4
Have you ever heard about NT before? If yes, do you remember where?
2011
S.Net 2012
RESULT 1
Public awareness on nanotechnology: Italy - EU
5
Have you ever heard about NT before?
EUROBAROMETER 2010
S: Net Twente 2012
S.Net 2012
RESULT 1
Public awareness on nanotechnology – Media coverage
6
n° articles
MEDIA COVERAGE NT
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
150 152
145
118
94
133
108
95
53
18
20
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
year
Source: on-line archives of “Il Corriere della Sera” and “la Repubblica”
S: Net Twente 2012
S.Net 2012
RESULT 1
Public awareness on nanotechnology – Blog and queries
7
Trends of English and Italian blog 2004-2011 (Google Blog 10.10.12)
Trends of Italian blog 2004-2011 (Google Blog 10.10.12)
nanotecnologie
3000000
2500000
30000
2000000
25000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
nanotechnology
nanotecnologie
20000
nanotecnologie
15000
10000
5000
0
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Trend of Italian Google queries 2004-2011 (Google Insight for Search 18.09.2012)
S: Net Twente 2012
S.Net 2012
RESULT 2
Attitudes towards nano- and bio-tech
8
NT (mean value)
BT (mean value)
2006
2011
EASST/4S Copenhagen 2012
S.Net 2012
SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF NT:
COMPARING 2006 and 2011 from another point of view
9
S.Net 2012
RESULT 2
Attitudes towards nanotechnology
10
Positive attitudes and familiarity with nanotechnology are strongly associated
Have you ever heard NT before?
p
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
S.Net 2012
RESULT 3
What does influence attitudes ?
11
THE DIPENDENT VARIABLES: TWO SYNTETIC INDEXES OF ATTITUDES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Each individual position, collected
through a semantic differential, have
been transformed in a 1-10 scale (see
on the right)
The “don’t know” answers have
received the value 5,5 (see on the right)
The original 6 item of semantic
differential have been synthesized in 2
indicators: :
•
POSITIVE INDEX = useful,
positive, good
•
SAFETY INDEX = safe,
acceptable, controllable
The two indexes have been organized
in the following 3 categories:
•
Pessimist: mean value [1-3]
•
Don’t know: mean value [4-7]
•
Optimist: mean value [8-10]
At which extent NT (or BT) are :
POSITIVE INDEX
UNUSEFUL BAD NEGATIVE USEFUL score 1
GOOD score 1
POSITIVE score 1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
▼
6
7
6
7
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
DON’T KNOW
DON’T KNOW
DON’T KNOW
USEFUL
GOOD
POSITIVE
5,5
5,5
5,5
SAFETY INDEX
UNCONTROLABLE DANGEROUS UNACCETTABLE CONTROLLABLE
SAFE
ACCETTABLE
DON’T KNOW
DON’T KNOW
DON’T KNOW
▼
CONTROLLABLE
1
score
SAFE score 1
ACCEPTABLE score 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5,5
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
5,5
5,5
S.Net 2012
RESULT 3
Frequency distribution of the two indexes
12
POSITIVE INDEX
SAFETY INDEX
S.Net 2012
RESULT 3
The independent variables in the logistic regression model:
13
13
2006
48,1%
51,9%
2011
48,0%
52,0%
31
45
62
33
47
63
67,4%
25,6%
7,0%
52,2%
36,0%
11,8%
1,4
0,8
1,0
0,9
never
almost sometimes
38,6%
61,4%
32,0%
68,0%
reading S&T PAGES in newspaper never
almost sometimes
63,3%
36,7%
67,7%
32,3%
reading S&T MAGAZINES
never
almost sometimes
81,1%
18,9%
94,4%
5,1%
TRUST IN PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS*
low
hign
64,7%
35,3%
49,4%
50,6%
Have you ever heard NT before?
YES
NO
28,3%
71,7%
24,4%
75,6%
GENDER
male
female
AGE (years)
1°q
2°q
3°q
EDUCATION
low
medium
high
SCIENTIFIC LITERACY
(score: 0-3)
mean
dev.st
reading NEWSPAPERS
*= agreement to “public institutions can
protect citizens against the risks connected to
the techno-scientific development”
S.Net 2012
RESULT 3
What does influence attitudes …
14
NT
Exp(B) = Pr (being optimist)/ Pr (being “don’t know”)
Logistic Regression
MODEL
Positive Index
2006
2011
Which characteristics
increase the probability
to being optimist?
gender
age
education
scientific literacy
reading newspapers
.reading S&T pages
reading S&T magazines
trust in institutions
Safety Index
having heard about NT
*reference cathegory:low
S.Net 2012
RESULT 3
What does influence attitudes … NT versus BT
15
POSITIVE INDEX
Exp(B) = Pr (being optimist)/ Pr (being “don’t know”)
2006
Logistic Regression
MODEL
2011
BT
Which characteristics
increase the probability
to being optimist?
gender
age
education
scientific literacy
reading newspapers
.reading S&T pages
reading S&T magazines
trust in institutions
NT
*reference cathegory:low
S.Net 2012
RESULT 3
What does influence attitudes … (trust in institutions and intensity
of the public debate)
16
16
INTENSITY of PUBLIC DEBATE
+
BT
NT
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
2016
trust plays an important role (only) when public debate is high
S.Net 2012
RESULT 3
What does influence attitudes … NT versus BT
17
SAFETY INDEX
Exp(B) = Pr (being optimist) / Pr (being “don’t know”)
2006
Logistic Regression
MODEL
2011
BT
Which characteristics
increase the probability
to being optimist?
gender
age
education
scientific literacy
reading newspapers
.reading S&T pages
reading S&T magazines
institution’s confidence
NT
*reference cathegory:low
S.Net 2012
CREDITS
18
18
Nicoletta Parise (University of Padua) for statistical analysis
Department of Sociology (University of Padua) for funding the
survey 2006
CIGA for funding the survey 2011
S.Net 2012