David Kirkpatrick

May 5, 2010

Providing disadvantages along with advantages helps nanotech acceptance

One of my more popular all time posts is “Nanotechnology does have drawbacks” from September 2008 so that tells me people regularly search for the negative side of nanotech. The topic is something that heads toward higher level science and the term gets tossed around a lot — and a lot of the time incorrectly as far as that goes — so people are naturally curious about exactly what is nanotechnology and how is it good and bad.

This survey, not surprisingly, found that providing information about the risks of nanotech increases public support among those who have heard of the field. Of course it also found support decreased among those who’d never heard the term once they were frightened by the potential drawbacks. I’m guessing scientific fact that sounds like scientific fiction can be pretty scary to someone who’s not familiar with what it can, and might, do both positive and negative.

From the second link, the release:

Survey: Hiding Risks Can Hurt Public Support For Nanotechnology

Release Date: 05.04.2010

A new national survey on public attitudes toward medical applications and physical enhancements that rely on nanotechnology shows that support for the technology increases when the public is informed of the technology’s risks as well as its benefits – at least among those people who have heard of nanotechnology. The survey, which was conducted by researchers at North Carolina State University and Arizona State University (ASU), also found that discussing risks decreased support among those people who had never previously heard of nanotechnology – but not by much.

“The survey suggests that researchers, industries and policymakers should not be afraid to display the risks as well as the benefits of nanotechnology,” says Dr. Michael Cobb, an associate professor of political science at NC State who conducted the survey. “We found that when people know something about nanotechnologies for human enhancement, they are more supportive of it when they are presented with balanced information about its risks and benefits.”

The survey was conducted by Cobb in collaboration with Drs. Clark Miller and Sean Hays of ASU, and was funded by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.

However, talking about risks did not boost support among all segments of the population. Those who had never heard of nanotechnology prior to the survey were slightly less supportive when told of its potential risks.

In addition to asking participants how much they supported the use of nanotechnology for human enhancements, they were also asked how beneficial and risky they thought these technologies would be, whether they were worried about not getting access to them, and who should pay for them – health insurance companies or individuals paying out-of-pocket. The potential enhancements addressed in the survey run the gamut from advanced cancer treatments to bionic limbs designed to impart greater physical strength.

One segment of participants was shown an image of an unrealistic illustration meant to represent a nanoscale medical device. A second segment was shown the image and given a “therapeutic” framing statement that described the technology as being able to restore an ill person to full health. A third segment was given the image, along with an “enhancement” framing statement that described the technology as being able to make humans faster, stronger and smarter. Two additional segments were given the image, the framing statements and information about potential health risks. And a final segment of participants was not given the image, a framing statement or risk information.

The survey found that describing the technology as therapeutic resulted in much greater public support for the technology, as well as a greater perception of its potential benefits. The therapeutic frame also resulted in increased support for health insurance coverage of nanotech treatments once they become available, and increased concerns that people wouldn’t be able to afford such treatments without insurance coverage.

“These findings suggest that researchers, policymakers and industries would be well advised to focus their research efforts on developing therapeutic technologies, rather than enhancements, because that is the area with the greatest public support,” Cobb says.

The use of the nanotech image did not have a significant overall impact on participants’ support, but did alarm people who were not previously familiar with nanotechnology – making them less likely to support it.

The survey was conducted by Knowledge Networks between April 2-13. The survey included 849 participants, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percent.

NC State’s Department of Political Science is part of the university’s College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

This illustration was used to represent a nanoscale medical device in the national survey on public attitudes towards the use of nanotechnology for human enhancement.This illustration was used to represent a nanoscale medical device in the national survey on public attitudes towards the use of nanotechnology for human enhancement.

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: