On EuroBarometer 64.3

Starting with the Executive Summary.

Number in ( ) are page numbers.

Highlights -

(3) There is no evidence that opposition to GM food is a manifestation of a wider disenchantment with science and technology in general. IF TRUE, then I suspect the linkage between GM food and nanotechnology despite the claims that both did not involve substantial citizen participation.

(4) Optimism about nanotechnology has increased since 2002 - the ratio of optimists to pessimists in 8 to 1. NOT TRUE. Simply put, this is an insufficient data set to draw this conclusion beyond the difficulties associated with categorizing optimists from pessimists.

(4) Europeans support the development of nanotechnology.... Neither nanotechnology nor pharmcogenetics are perceived to be risky. IF TRUE, there are dozens of ramifications. For example, it might demonstrate risk with technology is becoming unbundled. CONCERN: there might be some bundling occurring between nano and medicine which would depress risk estimates.

(5)... [T]he majority of Europeans ... opt for the principle of scientific delegation [decisions made on scientific evidence based on expert opinion].... Of the four principle of governance, scientific delegation is associated with higher levels of optimism about technology and support for nanotechnology.... IF TRUE, slow down the participation exercises and re-examine trust research. And if the association between "scientific delegation" and optimism is valid, stop it!

On the text

(9) Surveys provide low-resolution portraits of the broad panorama. Enough said. I have a lot of problems with methodology but leaving them aside, all conclusions drawn from this research should be conservative.

(10) Figure 1 shows a relatively low level of optimism for nanotechnology only beating out nuclear energy though nearly one-half were unsure and I expect the no effect response category reflects uncertainty as well. Hence, I would claim over half. It is unclear how many respondents had opinions without understanding what nanotechnology was in which case there may be more uncertainty. [I will address the definition and the concept of uncertainty below].

(15) Definition - Nanotechnology: involves the construction of tiny structures and devices by manipulating individual molecules and atoms. This is the leading sentence and from what I know about defining categories in surveys, very few of the respondents read further and even if they did read further they discounted what they read, esp. given this full sentence. Are we talking about bots again? What follows? Some applications of nanotechnology include: turning sea water into drinking water [opti-bias with high positive valence], implantable surgical devices to measure things like blood pressure [opti-bias with high positive valence since it tags transference from other medical uses], molecules to make wrinkle resistant clothes [low opti-bias], and cosmetics that are absorbed by the skin [low pessi-bias or probably moot, though absorption is a risky term to use]. In general, the definition becomes self-fulfilling and it ignores that use of embedded nanoparticles in dozens of product lines and free nanoparticles in some remediation.

(16) Figure 3 - FASCINATING. Someone should try to explain the nanotechnology familiarity ranking. Why does Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Luxembourg rank in the top five? I will refrain from some generalization about Scandinavians. And why does Ireland rank last? The snapshot picture of results by country is disturbing.

(17) Figure 4 - While it would be nice if the negative riskiness factor was positively associated with whether nanotechnology should be encouraged, was there a multivariate analysis of the data sets? Of course as indicated on p. 18, the data reflects all responses ...for both those who say they have heard of the applications before the interview, and those who have not. As such some leading had to occur. The remark that people who knew about nanotechnology were more positive is interesting and worth investigating since it would support the anchoring heuristic in perception research and would justify a strong positive PR campaign by the industry AND SOON before opinions set [think concrete].

(19) Figure 5 is about support for nanotechnology. It is once again puzzling when attempting to determine why some nations rank higher than others and worth more research with the Czechs on top and the Irish in the dumps.

(20) Table 2 will get some spin in the media. You have 91 percent support for nanotechnology (even though about over one quarter is soft support). That still is very impressive. Here it is especially noteworthy that this data set includes responses independent on knowledge base so we are measuring an interesting multi-faceted variable here.

(82) Table 13 - optimism in new technologies. When asked whether nanotechnology would improve our way of life in the next 20 years, 70/71/68 percent support across Europe/US/Canada. This is very encouraging and dampens the excessive rhetorical flourishes by the doomsayers and recalibrates the effect of the protestations from some groups. The report continues and concludes with support for nanotechnology and regulations [an aspect I will examine later].

CONCLUSIONS -

1. Don't overclaim the results but it is cheerier than anticipated. It behooves us to note there is some general support for nanotechnology and some confidence in current regulations and regulatory authorities.

2. Don't overclaim how solid or hard fast these opinions may be. We might learn they are soft and highly vulnerable to some epiphanic event which once amplified by the media could cause this support to tumble like a house of cards [JM, I agree with GG on this]. We need to test how resilient these opinions are and how to best turn them into attitudes.