Envisioning Emerging Nanotechnologies: A Three-Year Panel Study of South Carolina Citizens
Abstract
This article reports results from a three-year panel study of a nonrandom sample of 76 South Carolina citizens, recruited from a variety of walks of life, and their impressions of emerging nanotechnology. This discussion focuses on material from depth interviews conducted alongside a baseline opinion and awareness inventory at the beginning of the study, the most intensive data-gathering phase. These results are placed in the context of data from three additional surveys conducted at about equal intervals over the three years, plus exit interviews from 21 of the 34 individuals who completed the entire study. The results give insight into popular thinking about technology but little indication of strong emerging concerns, a trajectory of amplification of those concerns, or opinion polarization over time, despite some awareness of risks and potential ethical dimensions. Nanotechnology may stand out more as an example of risk attenuation than of risk amplification, consistent with most results from national surveys.
1. NANOTECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC OPINION
Public controversies surrounding the market introduction of genetically modified food and proposals to use embryonic stem cells in research have led policymakers to anticipate that nanotechnology would produce similar public reactions. The result has been substantial investment and investigation aimed at strategies for better “engaging” the public—and in understanding public concern—in consideration of our technological future as nanotech continues to unfold.
Ironically, however, groups such as the Woodrow Wilson Center's Pew-funded Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies have spent considerable effort and money trying to raise public consciousness about the health and environmental problems some forms of nanotechnology may actually bring us. Public concern about a range of risks associated with nanotechnology remains lower than concern among experts, at least in the United States,(1) although not necessarily in Europe.(2,3)
People are well known to make up their minds about technology and associated risks in a variety of ways. Values and affect—what we might best think of in lay terms as “gut reactions”—are certainly one component of this process.(4) Public reactions to technologies can also reflect beliefs about associated issues of procedural justice,(5) i.e., has the introduced technology or risk been managed in an open and fair way. Another component is the perceived trustworthiness of particular types of information sources,(6,7,8) which serves as a heuristic cue.
Some of these “nonscientific” influences are often implicitly interpreted as evidence of “emotional,” simplistic, or simply uninformed thinking on the part of lay publics, but may actually represent a highly rational approach to making up one's mind about an issue the technical facts of which are complex and uncertain, unknown, or simply unavailable to large numbers of nonexpert individuals. Regardless, much more knowledge likely remains to be uncovered concerning the ways that “ordinary” (nonexpert) people form technology-related opinions, and nanotechnology provides a unique opportunity for such study. These processes matter, politics aside, because choosing and using tools is an inherent part of what makes us characteristically human.
Public opinion data provide little evidence of popular negativity so far. Gaskel et al.(9) report that 50% of U.S. respondents in survey data they analyze expect nanotechnology to improve our way of life over the next 20 years, whereas 35% answered “don't know.” In Europe, only 29% agreed that nanotechnology would improve life, but 53% answered “don't know.” This could be evidence of more negativity in Europe, or simply lower awareness; at the time of this study, only 6% of Europeans and 4% of Americans foresaw a negative impact. Consistent results have been presented by Priest,(10) who found 46% in the United States and 39% of Canadians foresaw a positive impact. Generally, North American culture is pro-technology, the failure of this attitude to overcome resistance to some forms of biotechnology among some publics notwithstanding.
In an early volunteer Internet study, Bainbridge(11) found that the American public possessed limited knowledge about emerging nanotechnology industry yet were generally optimistic about its potential benefits such as improved healthcare, improved materials, and improved electronics and somewhat less concerned about its risks. Subsequent studies have shown that the public continues to have a very low level of understanding of nanotechnology.(12,13,14) Trends in Europe and elsewhere are similar to those in the United States in that the public generally has limited familiarity with nanotechnology; however, people in the United States tend to express less concern for the potential risks than their European counterparts.(15,16,17)
Several studies have pointed to possible influences on public opinion formation. For example, some studies suggest that religiosity plays a role in public opinion formation regarding this new technology(18,19) and that as an individual becomes more informed about nanotechnology, his or her opinions are shaped by political party affiliation.(20) Some authors have suggested that the use of heuristics best explains public opinion formation,(21,22) whereas others contend that public opinion formation is more nuanced and the data found require more complex explanation.(23,24) For example, Kahan et al. (25) suggest that public opinion is best explained by psychological factors, such as the values that affect cultural cognition. Some studies stress the role of public trust in government(26,27,28) or trust in science and technology in general.(29) Others consider framing's effect on public perception of technology,(30) the effect of exposure to science fiction,(31,32,33) or the effects of science fiction and nanotechnology-related nonfiction literature on pubic opinion.(34) Studies also seek to explain the public perception of nanotechnology as being driven by self-interested behavior(35) or by exposure to various scientific and technologically related images.(36)
Nanotechnology's emergence provided a unique opportunity to study public opinion formation from the early days of a new wave of technology. This study in particular was designed to follow a limited number of nonscientist participants over time, as a complement to national and international cross-sectional survey efforts. It was originally unknown whether nanotechnology would produce the same kind of opinion polarization and strongly held feelings as previous groups of technology—such as nuclear technology or biotechnology—had done. It appears to date as though this is unlikely, raising interesting questions of why nanotechnology is largely accepted (despite increased awareness of risks) whereas other technologies have met more active public resistance (social amplification of risk).(37)
Our goals in the present study, given the number of North Americans and others who appear to have no strong preconceptions about nanotechnology's risks or benefits, yet who seem in many cases to be positively disposed on the basis of general attitudes toward technology, are (a) to explore and document the ways in which ordinary people actually cope with the necessity to understand new and unknown technologies and to form opinions about them, using the state of South Carolina as a case study, and (b) to explore and document the ways in which access to news and information may play into this process, elements we follow for the same 76 South Carolinians’ perspectives through a series of follow-up surveys. Here we present primarily baseline data from this study.
2. STUDY OVERVIEW AND METHODS
This article reports primarily on the analysis of results from depth interviews with a 76-member panel of South Carolina citizens, placed in the context of quantitative results from four surveys administered to these same panelists over a total of about 32 months. The first survey was administered in conjunction with the baseline interviews in spring and summer of 2007; 34 panelists stayed active in the study for the entire period through late fall 2009 or in a few cases very early 2010. The interviews and initial surveys were completed in person; the three subsequent surveys were done by mail. Exit interviews were also administered (by telephone) to as many panelists as could be reached and who agreed to participate from among those who had completed the entire study (n= 22 of 34 who ultimately completed the survey series). In this article, the baseline interviews are used as the primary “window” on how individual panel members coped with the task of imagining this previously unfamiliar technology. Both the quantitative trend results and the exit interviews are also reported here briefly but reveal only modest changes in perspective from the beginning to the end of the study period.5
The choice of South Carolina was an arbitrary matter of convenience and represented the physical location of the principal investigator at the time of the initiation of the study. South Carolina is ethnically diverse, with 29.5% of its residents listing themselves as black, African American, or African in the year 2000 U.S. census; its per capita income for 2004 has been estimated at 83% of the U.S. average; and its 2003 unemployment rate was 7% when the U.S. rate was at 5%.(38) Stereotypically, South Carolina is seen as a part of the highly religious, highly Christian, and highly Protestant Bible Belt,(39) a salient fact to the extent religious heritage might represent a source of values and attitudes applicable to new technology.
This citizens’ panel was recruited through a number of community groups to reflect a diversity of backgrounds; this should be considered a purposive and not a random sample, one designed to allow a range of perspectives to inform the study's results rather than systematically sample specific demographic groups. The study included community opinion leaders (Kiwanis Club and Chamber of Commerce members), environmental stakeholders (Sierra Club members), and what one might call ordinary citizens composed of community volunteers, daycare workers, and members of three different church groups, two of them in the African-American community, from both urban and rural South Carolina. It may be important to remember that this study took place in a state whose flagship university had created a nanotechnology research program and significant outreach activities took place; the community leaders and Sierra Club members, recruited disproportionately from the state capital of Columbia where this flagship university is located, were much more likely to be familiar with the term “nanotechnology” than those from the other groups, representing smaller cities and towns. Five of the 19 community leaders, but no one in any of the other groups, had heard of nanotechnology via “presentations.”
The purpose of this recruitment strategy was not to create fully generalizable statistical results, but to get a sense of the range of opinions and perspectives that exist across diverse communities typical of the state and to understand the dynamics of opinion formation and change for the same set of individuals. The study also paid particular attention to the relationship between attitude formation and media consumption, which for the baseline and first-year data have already been published elsewhere.(40) That analysis had shown that heavy media consumers were more aware of risk than light media consumers, although the particular type of media consumed (ranging from national newspapers to talk radio) seemed less important. However, risk awareness increased from the time of the first survey to the time of the second for both heavy and light media consumers. This rise in risk perception is still visible, but no longer statistically significant, at the end of the full three years, with a smaller n remaining.
Doctoral students in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of South Carolina recruited and interviewed students from these various groups. The doctoral student interviewers attended a one-day training workshop and in most cases were matched with groups where they seemed to have an affinity to increase rapport, whether this was defined in terms of interests or demographics. For example, interviewees recruited from African-American church groups were interviewed by an African-American student; interviewees recruited from a daycare facility were interviewed by a female Caucasian student who lived in the same community and was the approximate age of many parents of young children; and so on. Generally, the interviewers recruited their own interviewees from among the group or groups to which they were assigned. Because the number of individuals in each group was quite small, our focus is not to systematically compare one group to another on statistical grounds; again, the purpose was to engage as broad as possible a range of individuals of different backgrounds as panel members rather than to study group differences per se.
A methodology was developed on the basis of our experience with pilot data involving both students and experts that consisted of a short series of highly open-ended questions regarding very general understanding and impressions, followed by reading a definition of nanotechnology, additional open-ended questions, administration of a quantitative survey regarding participants’ familiarity with nanotechnology, frequency of discussion, perceived risks and benefits, exposure to information, trust in information sources, knowledge of current applications, decision-making preferences, perceptions of science and the scientific community, and demographics. Finally, an additional series of open-ended questions was then asked at the close of the interview to gather any additional thoughts of participants that might have been sparked by the information on the questionnaire, which dealt with a number of specific applications as well as possible risks and benefits. This sequence allowed for the collection of very preliminary, unformed impressions as well as reactions to specific information, and for qualitative as well as quantitative information.
The interviews themselves followed an open-ended interview schedule. Interviewers were encouraged to use a conversational style, not to read the items verbatim, and to use neutral probes to elaborate on interviewee answers. After responding to an initial set of completely open-ended questions, the interviewees were then provided with a definition of nanotechnology and a few examples chosen and worded to be as neutral as possible. This was followed by paper-and-pencil administration of the initial quantitative survey covering primarily perceived risks, perceived benefits, and perceived need for regulation, and then a final set of open-ended oral interview questions.
The development of the interview protocol and the embedded survey had been guided by 33 prior interviews with University of South Carolina students and eight prior interviews with expert nanotechnology researchers recruited from among recipients of recent NSF and NIH grants in this area. We also drew on results from an online survey of 177 other nanotechnology researchers who had published in the nanotechnology area between 2004 and 2006.(41,42) Our initial intent in conducting the student interviews was to follow a “mental models” approach as developed for other risk communication problems by Morgan et al.(43) However, it quickly became clear that that our student subjects (almost without exception) did not have clearly defined mental models of what nanotechnology might be or how it might work, although they did have some associations, e.g., with “smallness” and Apple Computer's “iPod nano.”
The student interviews did confirm our general expectation that people use heuristic, cue-based reasoning to form opinions and attitudes, even in the absence of concrete technical information. In particular, a number of the students made explicit associations between nanotechnology and “technology in general,” asserting, for example, that technology is generally associated with human progress or that all technology carries risks as well as benefits. This observation suggested we could productively think in terms of a technology “template” that people might bring to the table in evaluating a new technology or class of technologies, particular applications of that technology, and the need for regulation. Such “templates” are more abstract or open-ended than what is generally implied by the idea of a “model” with working parts or a specific “schema” in the sense of a defined category, but might incorporate ideas about general elements to be expected or considered. Some elements of these “templates” were somewhat application specific, e.g., medical applications were generally viewed positively but also with a certain degree of apprehension regarding possible bad effects. This concept of a “template” was used in our design and analysis of the citizen panel baseline interviews.
The interviews were transcribed verbatim and the themes present coded using a standard “grounded theory” approach(44,45) in which the categories are not predetermined but emerge from the analysis. Formal interview content coding procedures were verified through the calculation of intercoder reliability statistics (Scott's kappa) based on having a second coder recode 10% of the interviews. These reliability coefficients were adequate (generally above 0.70) in most cases, ranging from 0.67 to 0.87. For five questions asking for explanations of answers (that is, asking respondents “why” they had given a certain answer), the reliability coefficients ranged from 0.22 to 0.59, however, and for questions about identifying the most important risks and benefits, the coefficients were 0.59 and 0.46, respectively. These more broadly open-ended questions are therefore not treated numerically in this study. (For numerical summaries of perceived risks and benefits, see Tables I and II.)
| Perceived Benefit | Panelist Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Medical, health | 38 | 50% |
| Environmental, cleaner energy, conservation, toxic cleanup | 7 | 9.2% |
| Clothing | 3 | 3.9% |
| Computers specifically | 3 | 3.9% |
| Science, genetics | 2 | 2.6% |
| Sports, tennis balls | 2 | 2.6% |
| Technology advances, robots, technology is beneficial | 2 | 2.6% |
| Efficiency | 2 | 2.6% |
| Electronics other than computers | 2 | 2.6% |
| Other | 15 | 19.7% |
- Intercoder reliability measured using Scott's Kappa, k= 0.73.
| Perceived Risk | Panelist Responses | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Unexpected consequences, harmful side effects, nano effects unknown | 28 | 36.8% |
| Weaponization, possible terrorism, end up in the wrong hands | 10 | 13.2% |
| Medical and health issues, cancer agent, water contamination, health side effects | 7 | 9.2% |
| Invasion of privacy | 4 | 5.3% |
| Lack of control over nanotechnology | 4 | 5.3% |
| No perceived risks at all | 4 | 5.3% |
| Expense, cost too much to develop, government will spend too much on it | 3 | 3.9% |
| Technology may not work, products may malfunction | 2 | 2.6% |
| Displacement of workers | 2 | 2.6% |
| Nano chemicals may be unstable | 2 | 2.6% |
| Other | 10 | 13.1% |
- Intercoder reliability measured using Scott's Kappa, k= 0.87.
3. BASELINE INTERVIEW RESULTS OVERVIEW
Clearly, the idea of nanotechnology (even before it was defined) struck most interviewees (51 of the 76 participants; 67.1% or about two-thirds) as positive rather than negative. Most also said the term was familiar (49 or 64.5%, again about two-thirds) and that they expected nanotechnology to provide more benefits than risks (62 or 81.6%, about four-fifths of participants). About three-fourths (56 or 73.7%) were unfamiliar with any specific products on the market, however. When specifically asked about ethical issues, more than two-thirds (53 or 69.7%) identified concerns. Interviewees expressed generally positive expectations, in other words, but some concerns; they had some idea what nanotechnology might be, but not much specific knowledge of its applications.
The awareness of ethics stands in apparent contrast to focus group results obtained earlier,(46) where participants did not identify ethical concerns when asked—indeed, one focus group participant in that earlier study had declared (interestingly) that “materials don't have ethics.” This difference in results likely stems, in our opinion, not from any actual change over time but from protocol differences; the focus group participants in the earlier study had been asked directly about ethics whereas some questions about distributional and other issues were posed to the interviewees in the current study that may have led them to think about issues that had not come spontaneously to mind and that might not have been spontaneously defined as “ethical” issues. In other words, what an academic observer defines as (or suggests might be) an “ethical issue” may be different from the concept of “ethics” used by study participants.
With respect to the citizens’ panel, we initially took note of the fact that none of the 19 community leaders (Chamber or Kiwanis recruits) and only 1 out of 18 (5.6%) Sierra Club members had not previously heard of nanotechnology (3 or 16.7% gave no answer or were unsure), whereas 23 out of 39 of the church, worker, and volunteer groups (60.0%) had not previously heard of it. Nevertheless, 70 out of the 76 panelists (92.1%), including 15 out of 16 (93.8%) church group recruits and 15 out of 18 (83.3%) Sierra Club members, felt that nanotechnology would improve our way of life in the next 20 years, as opposed to making things worse (4 respondents total or 5.3%) or having no effect (2 respondents total, 2.6%). In short, although our study was not designed to test specific hypotheses about the impact of religiosity, environmentalism, or familiarity on attitudes toward nanotechnology, our results do suggest that a generally pro-technology “template” is being applied by our panelists across these dimensions. This is roughly consistent with previous focus group results from the United States and Canada, which found about half of over 500 comments about nanotechnology to be positive and over one-third neutral, with benefit-related comments outnumbering risk-related comments by about 3 to 2.(47)
For further context, although 15 of the 16 church group recruits reported attending a place of worship once a week or more during the past year, 13 of the 16 rated “scientists” 3 or higher on a 5-point scale ranging from not credible to very credible (12 rated them 4 or higher). In other words, there is no direct evidence in our small regional sample of the anti-science sentiment sometimes alleged to be directly associated with religiosity. However, only 7 of the 16 (43.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that “scientific progress helps more people in my community than it hurts,” whereas for all other groups 49 of 60 or 81.7% agree with this statement.6
Preliminary analysis(48) had indicated that of 164 images and associations offered in response to initial interview questions asked of the citizens’ panel members, the majority were roughly consistent with how scientists use the term “nanotechnology,” even though these individuals did not necessarily rate themselves high on familiarity with nanotech. The most common association was with smallness. This took many forms, from abstract smallness to miniaturization to progress through smallness to the ability to store more information in a small space and process it more quickly, and so on. No strongly negative or completely inaccurate associations were apparent in these answers. Other common associations involved other technology such as computers, but a number of participants seemed to have no clear associations at all. The analysis below analyzes these responses in more detail.
3.1. “Typical” Panel Member Profile
For purposes of presentation and discussion, we found it interesting to construct a compiled profile of a “typical” panel member's reactions, based on the most common responses obtained in the baseline interviews. Our “typical” panel member, then, when asked what nanotechnology means says that it is something small (12 or 15.8%) or that it has to do with science (10 or 13.2%) or computers (11 or 14.5%). He or she may have seen something about nanotechnology on TV (14 or 18.4%). His or her evaluation of the technology, which again is most often positive, is often based on associations with technological or medical advancement. In fact, this hypothetical panel member imagines primarily medicine-related benefits (38 or 50.0%) and may believe these are the most important likely benefits. Yet he or she also sees risks that are associated with uncertainty, unforeseen side effects, or other consequences (28 or 36.8%) and may believe that these risks are also important alongside potential medical risks.
In addition, our “constructed” typical panel member is aware of ethical and other social issues associated with nanotechnology and, considering his or her limited specific knowledge of the technology itself, talks about these in what seem to be relatively specific terms. Important ethical concerns associated with nanotechnology may involve “corruption,” lack of controls, or failure to test for harm. He or she most likely believes commercial interests will benefit (18 or 23.7%) from nanotechnology, but the general public (15 or 19.7%) and the medical community (14 or 18.4%) also arise as common responses to the question of who benefits. Our panel member is likely to believe that the poor or uneducated (17 or 22.4%) will bear nanotechnology's risks disproportionately, but researchers exposed to the technology may also be identified here (15 or 19.7%).
3.2. Less Consensus on Policy
Our hypothetical “typical” panel members sees nanotechnology as a “wise investment” for government” (64 of 76 participants or 84.2%), with many participants suggesting the technology will improve the quality of life. Yet a lack of consensus on policy options is apparent, interestingly parallel to earlier results for technology more generally based on large surveys in North America and Europe.(49,50) Large and roughly equal groups of respondents say that government should “be more active” in managing new technologies (28 or 36.8%) and that “the marketplace” should decide (33 or 43.4%). Our panelist-respondents generally explain simply that this either is—or isn’t!—the government's role. Roughly equal groups also say people like them should have more say about technology policy (31 or 40.8%) and that they have enough say already (32 or 42.1%). And with respect to regulation, there is an identical split between those saying government is “doing a good job” with nanotechnology risks (31 or 40.8%) versus those who say it is not (32 or 42.1%). These answers appear to reflect participants’ perceptions of the government's performance with other technologies.
Although half of the study participants believe that regulation concerning safety is the most important kind of regulation needed (38 or 50.0%), the second largest group (10 or 13.2%) suggested regulation related to ethical or moral concerns was most important.
4. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES
Because numerical summaries do not capture all of the nuances of how people respond to open-ended interview questions, this section illustrates the verbatim oral responses of participants in more detail. For example, for familiarity, even though most participants expressed some familiarity with the term nanotechnology, many expressed uncertainty about its meaning. Nevertheless, when asked what they thought the term might mean, most responses were not wholly inaccurate, even where imprecise. Most correctly identified nanotechnology as pertaining to the use and manufacture of small objects, but they typically had only general notions of what the term entails, as illustrated by this quote from Participant 16:
Participant 16: I’ve heard of the term. I think nanotechnology deals with technology or building technology on a molecular level—a very small, minute level that you can't see with the naked eye.
Many responded with ideas about the applications of this emerging technology. These ideas focused on advancements in recent products such as computers and other electronics, as illustrated below:
Participant 19: … technological capabilities, basically on a very small scale, shrunk down allowing for more capability really from a smaller processor or whatever piece of technology that's being used.
Interviewers asked participants to elaborate by asking whether the term suggested any mental picture. Participant 19 visualized an “extremely small processor on the end of a tip of a pencil.” Other mental images mentioned varied, though often conveying the notion of small particulate matter. For example, Participant 31 thought of “little tiny spheres.” Participant 70 visualized “a fine powder.” Participant 28 suggested that these microscopic particles reminded him of a popular commercial product, “Scrubbing Bubbles.” Other participants made media references, particularly references to works of popular fiction. For example, the popular science fiction novel Prey influenced this participant's image:
Participant 30: Well, because I watched the—or listened to the Michael Crichton book on tape, um, yeah, just kind of sort of a cloud like of dust particles that can get inhaled and do what they need to do, or injected someplace and to help with measurements or whatever else … .
When asked whether they thought of nanotechnology as being positive or negative and prompted to elaborate on why they felt the way they did, typical responses connected nanotechnology to scientific, technological, or medical advancement. Moreover, such advancements were often thought of as being inherently good because they provide general utility. For example, one participant expressed the belief that nanotechnology will provide us with positive and practical products:
Participant 23: Um, I’ve been convinced that, uh, nanotechnology is going to provide us with helpful, sometimes life-saving, products … items that are going to be very useful in most of our day-to-day life. Um, perhaps provide cures for diseases that, uh, we don't have cures for yet.
Only four participants (5.3%) considered nanotechnology to be negative. One mistakenly thought nanotechnology meant “no technology,” whereas two interviewees seemed to have negative reactions simply because of an admitted lack of familiarity. Only one respondent gave a definitive reason for believing nanotechnology is negative, by suggesting that technology in general will result in the “downfall of our civilization.” Many of the remaining participants, while positive, expressed uncertainty. For example, this participant articulated a general intuition that nanotechnology was positive but also a feeling of cautious optimism:
Participant 16: My first impression is positive, but I would say nanotechnology, like with anything, has potential for bad. For instance, you have the Internet; it has potential for good, but it also has potential for evil. You have nuclear energy; it has potential for good, but it also has potential for evil. You think of fire, it has the ability to keep people warm but it also has the potential to kill people. So … my first impression is positive, but I do see just like with anything there is potential for bad. I can see it being used to invade people's lives kind of like the Big Brother, always keeping track of people knowing what is going on, that kind of thing.
Interestingly, one participant, Participant 9, suggested that nanotechnology would be positive for the younger generation but negative for older adults, who are “behind the times.”
Study participants, then, overwhelmingly approve of the idea of nanotechnology, given their limited (yet generally correct) understanding of the term. Moreover, uncertainties attached to their initial impression were often couched in terms of concern for the consequences of the use of technology—a common theme that permeates many of the responses to other questions.
Although the majority of interviewees had at least some familiarity with the term “nanotechnology,” far fewer had any familiarity with products using nanotechnology. Among the few who had heard of products incorporating nanotechnology, several mentioned mp3 players such as the IPod Nano, others mentioned clothing or sporting equipment, and several mentioned its use in sunscreen:
Participant 23: Uh, the sunscreen one is one that, uh, is significant to me ‘cause I’ve got a skin cancers that I’ve—I’ve used that product.
4.1. Weighing Risks and Benefits
After responding to questions regarding their familiarity and initial impressions, the participants were handed a brief description of nanotechnology, also read aloud by the interviewer. Participants were then asked the question about whether more risks or benefits were present. Although most saw mostly benefits, some prefaced their answers with caveats to the effect that the preponderance of benefits over risks was contingent on its appropriate use or control. For example, Participant 60 said that it would have more benefits if “properly managed.” Moreover, most interviewees who saw greater benefits thought the risks of this technology might only become apparent over time. For example, one participant explained that we will see the benefit at the onset of the use of any new technology, but it is difficult to discern the risks until the technology has been in use, and we have had experience with it:
Participant 9: I tell you what. I’m 59 and from what I’ve seen, I don't know how far our research has gone to kind of look at what problems might arise from that. There is always instant benefits. But the long term effect? It's just no way to see that far ahead as how things will go. A lot of stuff that we have had over the years have been beneficial at the very beginning, and then later on we find side effects.
Similarly, those participants (6 or 7.9%) who felt that the risks and benefits were comparable typically claimed that they based their assumptions on the lack of knowledge of the unforeseen risks. For example, Participant 61 suggested that technology “has to be in use to know what the risks are.”
Many of the participants who felt that nanotechnology would be of primary benefit to medicine mentioned targeted therapy, as illustrated by the response below:
Participant 34: I think the main benefits would be medical. I mean, being able to inject some form of nanotechnology into the body that would go and find a cancer and eat it … it's almost like putting a little machine in your body that searches out, you know, disease or whatever, uh, cells, you know, kind of infiltrates, uh, fixes it or destroys it.
Others believed that the main benefit to medicine would be improvement in diagnostics made possible by “being able to get in there and see things more clearly” (Participant 17). Finally, several participants mentioned improvements in surgical techniques. Participant 24 mentioned that “probably one of the biggest areas for nanotechnology to improve lives in terms of heart catheterizations—I guess being able to put in stints.”
Some, such as Participant 16, one of a handful who felt that nanotechnology would typically benefit the environment directly, thought that the benefit to the environment would itself benefit human health:
Participant 16: I would say the main benefits would be helping to better and prolong human life. That would be the main benefit. Whether it's through cleaning of the environment, giving people clean water or as I mentioned earlier, giving people the ability to see or hear, when they’ve lost it. The main benefit would be to improve human life.
This idea that nanotechnology would benefit human life was reflected in the responses referring to which benefits the interviewees thought were the most important. A number of interviewees articulated the belief that medical advancements would be the most likely benefits of nanotechnology. Participant 15 expressed excitement when she said, “Well, yes! Maybe people who are crippled could walk again!”
Risks of uncertainty, unfamiliarity, or unforeseen or unknown side effects are illustrated by Participant 3's comment that the primary risk is that we would not “know what the outcome [of using nanotechnology] would be.” In addition, a number of participants (10 or 13.2%) mentioned concern that nanotechnology would be used in weaponry or by terrorists. For example, Participant 8 suggested that if we can make beneficial things, we “can also create weapons—different type weapons that can harm people.” Another participant also expressed concern about the extent to which nanotechnology will be used in warfare:
Participant 68: Uh, the biggest risks are warfare and murder. Mass genocide. I think those are the biggest risks … and I guess what I’m talking about here are weapons and, um, just mass devastation. This would be a risk to not only people and animals but also to the environment. Any time you can make smaller, you can make more.
When asked about ethical concerns, some form of corruption was a recurrent theme. Participant 22 expressed concern regarding the impact of the moral views of the scientists, particularly the perception of the detachment of science from ethical considerations. He also expressed the worry that those in charge may lack integrity:
Participant 22: And not having the ability to see what bad things can happen with what they only want to see good in …. And forget to apply ethical considerations sometimes. Not, you know, it could be a great for some small group of society, and it could be horrible for mankind. It could be great for the United States, but it’d be horrible for mankind. And most all these things in the short range, it uh, they and we will not see the consequences of, but the long range consequences.
Harm to others from a lack of control or science somehow stepping out of its boundaries was also a common theme. For example, Participant 6 mentioned the importance of continued research to ensure that “things will go good and not harm people.” Another participant said:
Participant 8: Yeah I do. Just like discovering anything new, there is always a chance that somebody will find a right way and a wrong way to use it. Hopefully it can be controlled some way by the government, regulations or whatever. Otherwise you are going to have somebody who is going to use it in a bad way.
Although 20 of the 76 participants (26.3%) said they did not have any ethical concerns, some of these nevertheless gave examples of what could be interpreted as ethical concerns in their responses. Some interviewees mentioned their positive expectations as a rationale for having no ethical concerns, for example, as this participant suggested when asked if she had ethical concerns:
Participant 3: No. Not right now … I think everybody is going to benefit from nanotechnology … whether it's the young generation or the old generation. I think everybody is going to benefit because I think it's going to be a good thing.
Participant 18 suggested that his trust in the benevolence of the researchers, that they will “do the things that are right for the majority … of society,” is a factor in his lack of ethical concern.
When asked who they thought stands to gain the most benefit from nanotechnology, the typical interviewees tended to respond that those who would see the most benefits would do so because of monetary gain, as illustrated below:
Participant 32: Um, stockholders of companies who are, uh, in the field would probably benefit the most … Uh, well it seems like this technology that, um, has a lot of applications, um, you know, it could only help that company's growth, um, thereby increasing the value to shareholder.
The general public or humankind in general was also seen as a beneficiary. Many, such as the participant below, stated that the reason they felt those who would see the most benefit would do so was because of improvements in the medical and pharmaceutical industries, improvements in technology for healthcare, or better healthcare in general:
Participant 23: I think the general overall population of, uh, of virtually all of civilization … Um, you know, the scientific, um, advances that could be made on that—on that level of—of probably cannot be numbered. Uh, if we can improve nutrition, improve, uh, health care, uh, improve, um, standards of living in the poorest of countries using nanotechnology, improve the quality of life even in the wealthiest countries, it’ll spread.
Others said that medical community itself would benefit most. For example, Participant 54 suggested that “in the health field they could use that more in surgeries and operations to get a better view of the body … .” Other interviewees said that the higher class, the rich, or the educated would benefit the most. For example, Participant 25 said, “Uh, I’d say middle—middle to upper class … Just ‘cause they had more—they have funds to access the advantages of it.”
Conversely, the lower class, the poor, or the uneducated were seen as bearing disproportionate risks. For example, as one participant suggests:
Participant 1: I’d say the lower class seems to be always the first to be affected by new technology. It's usually waste or something put into an area (a poor area), you just don't ever know. It may affect the lower-budget people first.
As an example of those who said that the researchers, scientists, the producers or people working directly and regularly with nanotechnology would be most exposed to nanotechnology's risks, Participant 18 said: “Right now probably the people that are doing the research … They’re closest to it.” Others said members of the medical community or healthcare providers would be most exposed to the risks. For example, Participant 54 said: “Probably doctors, I think they would be exposed to it a lot.”
Another group identified consumers, the general public, or anyone exposed to nanotechnology as being most vulnerable to its risks. For example:
Participant 8: I think everybody. I think everybody will be equally exposed … . Because it's like anything else, it's going to be readily available to everybody. Everybody is going to be involved in it. I think everyone will be exposed to it.
Yet other interviewees said that risk arose because of unknown risks, unknown side effects, or health risks in general. For example, one participant said:
Participant 29: You don't know how they’re gonna react. Are there any, you know, chemical components, you know. Um, so if you’re exposed to something every day, percentages show you’re likely gonna be at risk more.
4.2. Government Involvement
When asked about government participation in this emerging technology, nanotechnology was overwhelmingly seen as a good investment. As Participant 3 said, “I think it is. The investment in nanotechnology might help poor people in the grand scheme of things.” Others said it would improve quality of life, help people in general, or would be for the betterment of society in general. For example:
Participant 46: Yes … Even if it can improve everyday life it's a wise investment as long as it's not used as a political tool. If it's actually meant to improve life, to help the people, then I think it should be allowed and encouraged.
Some voiced a positive view of technological progress in explaining their support of government investment. This group said that investment is practical because advancement is good, that this technology may offer new ways to solve various problems, or that progress on many levels is positive and holds great promise. For example, Participant 26 said: “Investment in new technology is always good.”
Many participants seemed to agree that it is the government's job to regulate, as the only entity that can regulate properly and manage the risks of nanotechnology, or that the government should have a say in the regulation of a new technology. For example, as Participant 1 suggested:
Participant 1: I think the government needs to take a hand in anything we do (related to technology). Let them weigh the pros and cons when dealing with new technology because they will be the top ones leading the fight for different technologies and things. And maybe they can come to an agreement on whether it will be best for us and our future or not.
But others said the marketplace should decide, or that it is not the government's place to regulate, some expressing little trust in the government's ability to regulate. Some felt that government involvement is generally bad, or that there is already too much involvement. For example, as Participant 5 said, “I don't have much faith in the government we have now. This government doesn't have the ability to manage anything.” Participant 18 represents those who suggested that the marketplace is a better controlling factor, in his view because it would be more efficient:
Participant 18: I think the marketplace should decide. … Because I think that process is more efficient and it doesn't carry the huge bureaucracy the huge cost and the large amount of inertia that the federal government does. I just think that if the market drives it it's a more efficient process.
Yet others said both the government and the marketplace should decide nanotechnology's future:
Participant 21: I think a combination of both. … I think that government's good for starting the heavy lifting and doing the initial investment but private companies are much better getting a solution to market whether that's a product or a drug or whatever. The federal government tends to be a lot slower in getting things like that.
Those who said that people already have mechanisms that allow them to voice their opinions on technology are represented by Participant 18, who said:
Participant 18: I think we have enough opportunities to make ourselves heard and express ourselves. …Well we can always vote. We can always choose to buy the products or not buy the products. We can always choose to invest in the companies that are developing the products and developing the science. So in those areas I think we have an adequate voice and lots of ways to express ourselves.
Some of those who felt that people did not have enough say thought that the general public should be able to vote on nanotechnology. As one of these participants said:
Participant 5: People should have more say so. Because they should vote on more things, scientific things, and people are voting more than they used to. We need to get the young people to come out and vote. It's going to be their world.
But others who felt that people are not educated or well informed enough on nanotechnology to be making decisions about it are represented by this participant, who stated:
Participant 21: No I don’t, I don't think the general public can be educated … in enough detail to make a good decision. I think you have to dumb it down to a sound bite. You’re not gonna’ make a good decision off of a sound bite. The people who know the science and understand it are gonna’ be able to make the best decisions.
Participants who felt that the government had a good track record of regulation are represented by Participant 32, who said:
Participant 32: Well, does the government do a good job of regulating any risks to our health?… Oh, oh, well then. Yeah, I—I think they’ll—they’ll do a fine job. Um, it seems like they- the government has a lot of problems, but I think the sciences and, um, you know the national—various national institutes do a—a pretty good job of—of insuring safety. …You know, talking about like, you know, the FDA, um. You know, the National Transportation Safety Board … .
However, other participants did not agree, and some in this group felt that the government is corrupt and not interested in public's best interest, or were otherwise skeptical of the government's ability to regulate:
Participant 10: Probably not. … Because they haven't done a very good job in regulating the risks of prescription medicine and things like that. People die from taking prescriptions that have passed through the system and people take prescription for years and years and they say they are perfectly safe and all of a sudden they find out they cause heart attacks and deaths and everything and they have to pull it off the market.
Those supporting regulation on safety grounds are represented by Participant 20:
Participant 20: I would say just safety overall. Safety of the environment. Safety of people that it would affect. I think there should be some strict guidelines that they should adhere to.
Those who suggested regulation should address ethical or moral issues were a smaller group. Of these, Participant 46 said: “To prevent monopolies and to prevent unethical medical or genetic uses.” And Participant 51 said: “Ethical as they relate to medical and also conflict of interest regulations.”
Most participants, when asked whether they felt the government is doing a good job regulating the risks of other technologies, said yes. For example, as Participant 7 said:
Participant 7: I don't look at a lot of news but I haven't heard of any big explosions, or of many people dying of anything [regulated by the government.] The rules set down are being followed.
But another substantial group said the government has not done a good job of regulating other things, it is not capable of regulating anything, or it cannot do a good job. This group sometimes suggested that the government is corrupt and not concerned with public's best interest, or they were skeptical of the government's ability. For example, Participant 2 said: “No. I don't think the government is capable of regulating anything right now.”
4.3. Sources of Information
The largest single group of respondents (20 or 26.3%) did not remember getting any information about nanotechnology before this study. As Participant 3 said: “No. If I have, I can't remember. This is the first time I’ve heard of it.” Fourteen or 18.4% said television was their source. For example, Participant 1 said: “on television, I had seen a show of segment on nanotechnology. It was on 60 Minutes or something. It showed a little bit about nanotechnology but not into detail.” Magazines and the Internet were also cited as sources. According to Participant 60: “Well, I mean, you know, if I see articles on it—on the web, I’ll read them.” Overwhelmingly, participants said that if they wanted more information, they would turn to the Internet (66 or 86.8% of participants). For example, as Participant 24 said, “I’d probably, the Internet probably, I think. You can get a lot of information off the Internet, so I think just Google search, and I’m sure you’ll have plenty of subjects to review.”
5. CROSS-CUTTING THEMES
Several themes emerge from our analysis of the interview transcripts. Most participants’ expectations were positive, seeming to reflect a general belief that technology is beneficial. The support expressed over the prospective benefits tended to be tempered with the concerns for both the welfare of the individual participant and that of others. Some expressed concerns that both the benefits and the risks of this emergent technology would not be equally distributed. Interestingly, whereas a large majority, 53 or 69.7%, stated they had ethical concerns, others also mentioned ethical concerns. These included fair distribution of benefits, apprehension over risks to vulnerable populations, and worries about the misuses of technology, including applications in warfare and terrorism. Concerns about risks from medical uses and loss of jobs were also expressed.
Many participants seemed uncertain about their technological knowledge. Usually they seemed less than confident about their understanding of nanotechnology, and frequently they were reluctant to comment on what they thought it might entail. After encouragement from the interviewer, however, most would give some kind of association or mental picture of what they believed nanotechnology to be, though often a vague and general one (such as smallness). The ability to make computers smaller, faster, and more efficient was a common theme. Another common association was medical advancement. This seemed to reflect a general perception that nanotechnology could bring about better patient care and better diagnostic equipment. Although most of the interviewees seemed to be hopeful that nanotechnology would lead to faster, more efficient ways of doing things, some people believed nanotechnology would have a negative impact. A number of participants remarked that they were concerned about nanotechnology being so small that it could enable undetectable spying devices.
In the initial phase of the interview, a few interviewees mentioned fictional works referring to nanotechnology, including movies, television shows, and books. One commonly mentioned movie was Fantastic Voyage. Participant 56 commented it made him think of “little computers going into your bloodstream and fixing your body.” Other works referenced were I, Robot, The Six-Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman, The Bourne Supremacy, Star Trek, and perhaps most notably, the Michael Crichton book, Prey.
Though some expressed doubts that nonexperts ought to have much say regarding these technologies because of a lack of public understanding (21 or 27.6%), most felt that the people ought to be involved, either directly by public participation or indirectly by influence by market participation (43 or 56.6%). Participants were split on whether the government (28 or 36.8%) or the marketplace (33 or 43.4%) should exert greater influence on the emergence of this new technology.
Distrust in government or cynicism regarding government's abilities seemed prevalent (19 or 25%). Even a few participants who expressed confidence in the government's ability to regulate nanotechnology stated they felt this way because no major disasters resulting from poor regulation had occurred. Some expressed a desire for government noninterference despite a desire for government investment. Other participants mentioned both the marketplace and government as interacting to produce greater benefit, with some expressing fear of “big government” whereas others preferred marketplace control.
6. QUANTITATIVE TRENDS
As further context for interpreting the interview results, here we report observed trends over time in the 32-month period following the baseline data gathering for those participants completing the entire study. Results comparing the quantitative data from the initial and final (fourth) survey, for only those participants completing the entire study, reveal a statistically significant increase over time in perceived benefit to agriculture (p= 0.035), a marginally significant increase over time in concern about increased consumer expense (p= 0.065), and a marginally significant increase over time in perceived need for regulation related to nanotechnology's effects on human health (p= 0.062; Table III). Those participants completing the entire study did grow more aware of some of the applications over the study period, however. Although 7 or 20.6% had heard of nanotechnology being used in food packaging at the beginning of the study, this was true of 20 or 58.8% at the end (p= 0.002).7 Although 12 or 35.3% had heard of carbon nanotubes at the beginning, 20 or 58.8% had heard of them in the end.
| Benefit Variables | Baseline Mean | Final Mean | t | df | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health and Benefits | 4.42 | 4.45 | –0.130 | 30 | 0.897 |
| Agriculture | 3.50 | 4.07 | –2.207 | 29 | 0.035 |
| Materials | 4.29 | 4.29 | 0.000 | 30 | 1.000 |
| Electronics | 4.40 | 4.33 | 0.290 | 29 | 0.744 |
| Environment | 3.52 | 3.68 | –0.694 | 30 | 0.493 |
| Natural Resources | 3.23 | 3.57 | –1.505 | 29 | 0.143 |
| Energy | 3.87 | 3.90 | –0.147 | 29 | 0.884 |
| Economy | 3.60 | 3.80 | –0.902 | 29 | 0.375 |
| Total Benefit (average) | 3.85 | 3.98 | –0.743 | 29 | 0.464 |
| Risk Variables | Baseline Mean | Final Mean | t | df | Significance |
| Human Health | 3.03 | 3.27 | –0.980 | 29 | 0.335 |
| Animal Health | 2.80 | 2.93 | –0.660 | 29 | 0.514 |
| Environmental Pollution | 2.77 | 3.03 | –1.017 | 30 | 0.317 |
| Expense | 2.87 | 3.33 | –1.919 | 29 | 0.065 |
| Rich/Poor Divide | 3.28 | 3.47 | –1.063 | 31 | 0.296 |
| Privacy | 4.00 | 3.50 | 1.761 | 31 | 0.088 |
| Access | 3.20 | 3.07 | 0.724 | 29 | 0.475 |
| Economy | 2.52 | 2.81 | –1.223 | 30 | 0.231 |
| Total Risk (average) | 2.98 | 3.13 | –1.192 | 31 | 0.242 |
| Regulation Variables | Baseline Mean | Final Mean | t | df | Significance |
| Human Health | 4.26 | 4.68 | –1.938 | 30 | 0.062 |
| Animal Health | 3.90 | 4.10 | –0.783 | 30 | 0.440 |
| Environmental Pollution | 4.26 | 4.03 | 0.879 | 30 | 0.387 |
| Expense | 3.61 | 3.94 | –1.186 | 30 | 0.245 |
| Privacy | 4.10 | 4.23 | –0.528 | 30 | 0.601 |
| Distribution of Benefits | 3.58 | 3.74 | –0.740 | 30 | 0.465 |
| Total Regulation (average) | 3.94 | 4.12 | –1.083 | 32 | 0.287 |
- All results based on responses to questions using a five-point scale.
Averaged across eight perceived benefit questions for study completers, the mean response was 3.85 on a 5-point scale at the beginning of the study, and 3.98 at the end of the study. For eight perceived risk questions, the means were 2.98 at the beginning and 3.13 at the end. For six questions about perceived need for regulation, the means were 3.94 at the beginning and 4.13 at the end. Perceived benefits, perceived risks, and perceived need for regulation all rose mildly during the study period, in other words, suggesting increased general awareness among those completing the entire study; however, none of these changes was statistically significant.
Although we can only speculate about the reasons, the increases in perceived benefit to agriculture and perceived need for health-related regulation seem to make general sense in terms of the public attention that might have been paid to these items over the period in question. The increase in concern about consumer expense could easily reflect the growing U.S. recession. Regardless of the actual reasons for these fluctuations, they are relatively mild and certainly do not seem to suggest public alarm over any aspect of nanotechnology's emergence in the consumer marketplace; even the increase in perceived need for health-related regulation was not accompanied by a significant change in perceived risk to human health. Here it is important to note that the group completing the entire survey is skewed toward those with graduate degrees and higher income; see footnote 13.
7. EXIT INTERVIEWS
Exit interviews were attempted on all of the panelists (N= 34) who participated in all four surveys, with 22 being completed, though one interview was discarded as unusable (survey materials available from the authors). These interviews were then coded for content, again using grounded theory procedures. A second coder recoded the interviews using the same categories; after the first 10% of the interviews were coded the two coders met to resolve discrepancies. Following this, the second coder completed coding the remaining interviews and intercoder reliability for each question was calculated using Scott's kappa.8 Seven of the 11 questions showed good reliability (k≥ 0.70) and one approached good reliability (k= 0.66). Other questions had reliability coefficients ranging from 0.34 to 0.58; as before, the lower-reliability questions included explanations and examples, and these data are not reported as numbers; other results are based on the first set of codes (coder one).
These exit interviews did not reveal major shifts in perception among our participants. Of these 21 individuals, by the end of this study 19 (90.5%) were familiar with the term “nanotechnology” (not surprisingly), and 18 (85.7%) thought of it as positive. Small technology or tools was the most common association. By this time, 15 (71.4%) had heard of products in the marketplace using nanotechnology, commonly mentioning medicine and healthcare. Most (14 of 21, or 66.7%) thought nanotechnology has more benefits than risks, again commonly seeing improved medicine and healthcare as the main benefits. Participants continued to see the main risks as unexpected side effects or other unforeseen harm, with most having concerns about ethics, including misuse of the technology, and generally felt that businesses, manufacturers, and researchers would realize the most gain. Approval of the government investment in nanotechnology was expressed by 18 participants (85.7%), who most commonly mentioned a general improvement of quality of life as the justification.
8. Conclusion and Implications
Despite a lack of nanotechnology-specific information, citizens in our study had opinions—sometimes strong ones—about what they expected. Although our study was originally inspired by “mental modeling” approaches, our panelists did not have clearly formed “models” of what nanotechnology is or how it works. Rather, they seemed to work with a “template” or suite of expectations, such as the idea that technology can be expected to have benefits, but also risks and uncertainties. This idea of a “template” is somewhat similar to the notion of a “schema” as used in cognitive psychology, but is much more open-ended. We see it as a set of collection of concerns, aspirations, and questions—a set of blanks to be to be filled in with the particulars of a given new technology.
In working with the transcripts of these interviews, we have been struck with the fact that our respondents are offering thoughtful replies; their technology “templates” seem to make this possible. People do not approach new technologies, even unfamiliar ones, with a completely blank slate. Awareness of ethical, legal, and social implications (or “ELSI” concepts) seems fairly widespread among our panelists; distributive justice matters to them; and they tend to see nanotechnology as a wise investment by society, something that makes sense in our generally pro-technology culture. It is also clear that from a public perception point of view, nanotechnology is not like biotechnology, where strong opinion divisions were apparent (in the United States as well as in Europe) very early on, consistent with most available survey results.
This observation raises intriguing issues of exactly why the “cultural resonance,” which we might define as the intensity of the shared, culturally grounded reaction to biotechnology—seen as biological technology—is so different from that of nanotechnology—seen as material science. People apply a “template” involving the potential existence of benefits, risks, and ELSI-type issues when evaluating new technologies, but it is certainly not one that inevitably leads to polarization or rejection. The “nano” and “bio” templates also appear different.
Finally, although the investment in nanotechnology is clearly supported by our panelists, they are divided on government's role and their own perceived need for additional engagement. It is likely that the panel group includes a disproportionate number of already politically and socially engaged individuals, given that they were recruited largely from organized community groups. The implications are important for promoters of public engagement in technology policy: although our observations may change nothing about whether and why public engagement is important, it underscores the fact that only a minority of citizens are likely to be among the highly engaged for policy technology issues.
Further research is necessary to determine whether the opinion formation trends we have observed are similar for opinion leader and “ordinary citizen” groups, how closely increasing support for regulation might be related to perceptions of risk (as well as media consumption), and whether the available data will allow us to be more specific about the nature of various technologies’ ability to induce varying degrees of “cultural resonance.” We do believe that this investigation has added to our understanding of how nonexpert publics grapple with new technologies more generally, despite its limitations; the issue of cultural resonance and the existence of opinion templates likely have broader applicability beyond the case of nanotechnology alone.
Footnotes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article was supported by grant number 0531160 from the National Science Foundation to the University of South Carolina. The assistance of graduate student interviewers Kim Smith, Heidi Campbell, Dan Walsh, and Mary McLaughlin is also gratefully acknowledged.
