Risk Perception

Commenting on a recent study of nanotechnology risk perception, our friend Michael Berger at Nanowerk writes:

The benefits of new technologies, whether they are new medical treatments, an innovative approach to farming or new ways of generating energy, almost always come with some new risks as well. In the emerging stages of a new technology, experts and the public generally differ in their perceptions of risk.

While this might be due to social and demographic factors, it is generally assumed by scientists who conduct risk research that experts' risk assessments are based more strongly on actual or perceived knowledge about a technology than lay people's risk assessments. Nevertheless, whether the risks are real or not, the public perception of an emerging technology will have a major influence on the acceptance of this technology and its commercial success. If the public perception turns negative, potentially beneficial technologies will be severely constrained as is the case for instance with gene technology.

It is not surprising that a new study found that, in general, nanoscientists are more optimistic than the public about the potential benefits of nanotechnology. What is surprising though, is that, for some issues related to the environmental and long-term health impacts of nanotechnology, nanoscientists seem to be significantly more concerned than the public.

The following chart (from the University of Wisconsin-Madison) illustrates the different levels of risk perceived by nanotech scientists versus the general public:

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

What I think this shows is that scientists and the public are talking about two different kinds of nanotechnology. Health-related risks and pollution issues are both more typically associated with current and near-future nanoscale technologies, while concerns about privacy erosion, economic disruption, and a new arms race are more often connected with longer-term advanced nanotechnology, i.e. molecular manufacturing.

So, the differing responses are not really a surprise at all, if it's understood that each group is considering risks related to technology levels that are vastly different in terms of power and potential.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Dan S]

Sampling error must always be taken into account when interpreting such data. Consider for example "Self-replicated robots" risk. The chart seems to tell us that scientists worry about this less than general public. But if we calculate 95% binomial confidence interval (taking into account total number of participating scientists - 363) we will get range from 2% to 7.7% (for percentage of scientists),thus making above conclusion doubtful.

Could you please be more careful and place appropriate warnings when posting poll results like this without accompanying statistical analysis?

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Dan, thanks for your comments. Even without doing the calculations, I would automatically assume that the difference between 5% and 9% was small enough to be negligible. It's the larger gaps that seem most significant -- both statistically and sociologically.