From the Editors

Nanotechnology is a major risk analysis issue, and the November 2011 issue adds to our nanotechnology portfolio with six risk perception articles. An introduction to the articles written by guest editor for the series, Nick Pidgeon, and Area Editor Michael Siegrist follows the Letter to the Editor.

The five other articles in the issue are all related in some way to theories and methods used to study nanotechnology. All are about risk perception, beliefs and communications, or the accuracy of information being communicated. Wouter Poortinga et al. studied the effectiveness of indoor radon risk communication programs in southwest England and Wales, which are relatively high-risk areas. Using a geographically stratified sampling design, the authors observed that radon awareness and testing were higher in areas that had elevated risk, where risk communication programs had begun as early as 2001. In other words, programs that have been reinforced are effective.

Living in poverty and having less formal education have repeatedly been shown to increase the likelihood of morbidity and even more so mortality. Shelly Hovick et al. examined how economically and educationally disadvantaged populations gathered and processed health-risk-related information. Funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the authors’ survey found that worry mediated other factors, and that disproportionately African Americans and respondents with less education had significantly less information to begin with, but worked harder to obtain information and learn about health-protective actions.

Communicating probabilities is always a challenge. Using an experimental design and female students as their sample, Tadeusz Tyszka and Przemyslaw Sawicki examined the relative roles of affect and cognitive factors in influencing sensitivity to information about the probability of a genetic disease in an unborn child. Funded by the Research Council of Norway, Ida Hogganvik et al. examined how to communicate risk information with graphs (colors, shapes, and sizes). The authors show that if authors use graphs, then they need unambiguous labels, as well as discussion in the text. The perspective article by Mark Gibbs examines the accuracy of the information that we communicate to decisionmakers. The author summarizes ecological risk analysis tools and persuasively argues that we need more post-hoc assessment of the accuracy of predictions.