On Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. L. (2007). Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/108/survey-finds-emotional-reactions-to-nanotechnology. (accessed March 7, 2007) - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
Before I review the Kahan study, I want to add that I am limited in comments I can make on two other studies mainly because there is insufficient evidence in print to say much.
First we have Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J., & Turner, S. (2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology, 1. December. 153-155.
Currall, Eden, Lane, Madera & Turner (2006) examined public acceptance in terms of consumer behavior. The data which was collected in 2004 compared nanotechnology with other technologies. The authors remarked: “…[W]hen assessing the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, people may draw upon analogies” like feelings toward other technologies and other health and safety issues (see Kahan et al below). They reported that nanotechnology was seen as relatively neutral. For example, nanotechnology was perceived as “…more risky and less beneficial than solar power, vaccinations, hydroelectric power and computer display screens” (p. 154). Their commentary added: “…[N]ow is the time to educate the public aggressively with facts about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Education can prevent opinions from becoming polarized on the basis of misinformation” (p. 154). While they are partially correct in terms of reducing polarization based on misinformation, Kahan et al (below) seriously challenge the utility of broad-based educational messages.
Second we have Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A., & Kastenholz, H., (2007). Risks and nanotechnology: The public is more concerned than the experts.” Nature Nanotechnology. 2. February 2007. 87.
Siegrist, Wiek, Helland & Kastenholz (2007) examine specific applications and risk perception. They verified the public perceives “more risks associated with nanotechnology than experts” and worried that “…experts might not be inclined to initiate the risks assessments that are expected by the public.” The team opined ominously. “The importance of trust for the positive perception of new technologies suggests that a preventable event with significant negative consequences must be avoided. Such an event, indicating lack of concern for public welfare, could have a disastrous impact on trust and results in decreased acceptance of nanotechnology” (p. 87). This conclusive remark while intuitive still needs some empirical validation.
Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. L. (2007). Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/108/survey-finds-emotional-reactions-to-nanotechnology. (accessed March 7, 2007).
The final one by Kahan, Slovic, Brahan, Gastil and Cohen (2007) released the first data set specific to nanotechnology risk perceptions and sets very high standards for studies to follow. The study concludes if the process of biased assimilation and polarization unfolds unchecked when it comes to processing information on nanotechnology, the future of nanotechnology may be “marked by the sort of conflict and division that historically attended nuclear power and today characterized the global warming debate.” This tendency by the public to filter information through emotion and values might be mitigated by framing exercises though framing as Kahan et al suggest but that may be just one option. The most interesting finding from this team was the effect of information on affect toward nanotechnology. “Exposure to information produced no overall shift in risk/benefit perceptions” and “…this finding weighs strongly against the inference that people can be expected to form a more positive view of nanotechnology as they learn more information.” This seems to produce quite a challenged to the deficit theory experts who claim more education is the answer and to the public outreach practitioners who are experimenting with deliberative polling exercises and cafes.
I am also reviewing the study in greater detail elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment