nach oben

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Erschienen in:

01.08.2013 | Research Paper

Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments

verfasst von: Nidhi Gupta, Arnout R. H. Fischer, Saji George, Lynn J. Frewer

Erschienen in: Journal of Nanoparticle Research | Ausgabe 8/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The introduction of different applications of nanotechnology will be informed by expert views regarding which (types of) application will be most societally acceptable. Previous research in Northern Europe has indicated that experts believe that various factors will be influential, predominant among these being public perceptions of benefit, need and consumer concern about contact with nanomaterials. These factors are thought by experts to differentiate societal acceptance and rejection of nanotechnology applications. This research utilises a larger sample of experts (N = 67) drawn from Northern America, Europe, Australasia, India and Singapore to examine differences in expert opinion regarding societal acceptance of different applications of nanotechnology within different technological environments, consumer cultures and regulatory regimes. Perceived risk and consumer concerns regarding contact with nano-particles are thought by all experts to drive rejection, and perceived benefits to influence acceptance, independent of country. Encapsulation and delivery of nutrients in food was thought to be the most likely to raise societal concerns, while targeted drug delivery was thought most likely to be accepted. Lack of differentiation between countries suggests that expert views regarding social acceptance may be homogenous, independent of local contextual factors.

Vorheriger Artikel Novel quasi-cube TiO2 nanoparticles as light-scattering layers for dye-sensitized solar cells

Nächster Artikel Fe3O4 nanoparticle loaded paclitaxel induce multiple myeloma apoptosis by cell cycle arrest and increase cleavage of caspases in vitro

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Because of the specific calculations used for repeated measures ANOVA, degrees of freedom for the F test are estimated, allowing for degrees of freedom with decimals.

Anderson K, Jackson LA (2005) GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 49(3):263–281. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2005.00306.x CrossRef

Andree P (2002) The biopolitics of genetically modified organisms in Canada. J Can Stud 37(3):162–191

Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith H, Slovic P (1997) Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Soc Sci Q 78(1):167–176

Besley JC, Kramer VL, Priest SH (2008) Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and regulation. J Nanopart Res 10(4):549–558CrossRef

Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) A small matter of regulation: an international review of nanotechnology regulation. Columbia Sci Technol Law Rev 8:1–32

Bruhn CM (1995) Consumer attitudes and market response to irradiated food. J Food Prot 58(2):175–181

Burgman M, Carr C, Godden L, Gregory R, McBride M, Flander L, Maguire L (2011) Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv Lett 4(2):81–87. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00165.x CrossRef

Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

Carter CA, Gruere GP (2003) Mandatory labeling of genetically modified food: does it really provide consumer choice? AgBioForum 6(1–2):68–70

Chapin SL, Chapin LD (1994) Biotech or biowreck? The implications of Jurassic Park and genetic engineering. Bull Sci Technol Soc 14(1):19–23CrossRef

Coles D, Frewer LJ (submitted) Nanotechnology applied to European food production—a review of ethical and regulatory issues

David K, Thompson PB (eds) (2011) What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington

Dudo A, Choi D-H, Scheufele DA (2011) Food nanotechnology in the new. Coverage patterns and thematic emphases during the last decade. Appetite 56:78–89CrossRef

Evans R (2008) The sociology of expertise: the distribution of social fluency. Sociol Compass 2(1):281–298. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00062.x CrossRef

Fife-Schaw C, Rowe G (1996) Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. Risk Anal 16(4):487–500. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01095.x CrossRef

Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9(2):127–152CrossRef

Fischhoff B, Watson SR, Hope C (1984) Defining risk. Policy Sci 17(2):123–139CrossRef

Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Anal 13(6):643–648CrossRef

Frewer LJ, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42(7):1181–1193CrossRef

Frewer LJ, Bergmann K, Brennan M, Lion R, Meertens R, Rowe G, Siegrist M, Vereijken C (2011a) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:442–456CrossRef

Frewer LJ, Fischer ARH, Wentholt MTA, Marvin HJP, Ooms BW, Coles D, Rowe G (2011b) The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: some lessons learned. Technol Forecast Soc 78(9):1514–1525. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.05.005 CrossRef

Frewer LJ, Kleter GA, Brennan M, Coles D, Fischer ARH, Houdebine L-M, Mora C, Millar K, Salter B (2013a) Genetically modified animals from life-science, socio-economic and ethical perspectives: examining issues in an EU policy context. New biotechnol. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2013.03.010

Frewer LJ, van der Lans IA, Fischer ARH, Reinders MJ, Menozzi D, Zhang X, van den Berg I, Zimmermann KL (2013b) Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci Technol 30:142–152CrossRef

Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J, Allum NC (1999) Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science 285(5426):384–387CrossRef

Gilbert C (2007) Crisis analysis: between normalization and avoidance. J Risk Res 10(7):925–940CrossRef

Gunter VJ, Harris CK (1998) Noisy winter: the DDT controversy in the years before silent spring. Rural Sociol 63(2):179–198CrossRef

Gupta N, Fischer ARH, van der Lans I, Frewer LJ (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14(5):1–15. doi:10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x CrossRef

Hall C (2007) GM technology in forestry: lessons from the GM food ‘debate’. Int J Biotechnol 9(5):436–447CrossRef

Herrick CB (2005) ‘Cultures of GM’: discourses of risk and labelling of GMOs in the UK and EU. Area 37(3):286–294. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00632.x CrossRef

Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Science Commun 33(2):167–200CrossRef

Kinkela D (2005) The question of success and environmental ethics: revisiting the DDT controversy from a transnational perspective, 1967–72. Ethics Place Environ 8(2):159–179CrossRef

Knight JG, Holdsworth DK, Mather DW (2008) GM food and neophobia: connecting with the gatekeepers of consumer choice. J Sci Food Agric 88(5):739–744CrossRef

Kroll G (2001) The “silent springs” of Rachel Carson: mass media and the origins of modern environmentalism. Public Underst Sci 10(4):403–420CrossRef

Kuzma J, Priest S (2010) Nanotechnology. Risk, and oversight: learning lessons from related emerging technologies. Risk Anal 30(11):1688–1698CrossRef

Macnaghten P (2011) From bio to nano: learning the lessons, interrogating the comparisons. In: David K, Thompson PB (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 107–123

Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–241CrossRef

Mehta MD (2004) From biotechnology to nantechnology: what can we learn from earlier technologies? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:34–39CrossRef

Michelson ES (2008) Globalization at the nano frontier: the future of nanotechnology policy in the United States, China, and India. Technol Soc 30(3–4):405–410CrossRef

Nelson G, Babinard J, Josling T (2001) The domestic and regional regulatory environment. In: Nelson G (ed) Genetically modified organisms in agriculture: economics and politics. Academic Press, San Diego

Paarlberg RL (2002) The real threat to GM crops in poor countries: consumer and policy resistance to GM foods in rich countries. Food Policy 27(3):247–250. doi:10.1016/s0306-9192(02)00014-3 CrossRef

Palmberg C, Dernis H, Miguet C (2009) Nanotechnology: an overview based on indicators and statistics. OECD science, technology and industry. Working Papers, 2009/7, OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/223147043844

Pollock CG (2001) Silent spring revisited: a 21st-century look at the effect of pesticides on wildlife. J Avian Med Surg 15(1):50–53CrossRef

Prakash A, Kollman KL (2003) Biopolitics in the EU and the US: a race to the bottom or convergence to the top? Int Stud Q 47(4):617–641. doi:10.1046/j.0020-8833.2003.00281.x CrossRef

Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–191CrossRef

Sandler R, Kay WD (2006) The GMO-nanotech (dis)analogy? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(1):57–62CrossRef

Sastry KR, Rashmi HB, Rao NH (2011) Nanotechnology for enhancing food security in India. Food Policy 36(3):391–400CrossRef

Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P (2004) Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Anal 24(5):1289–1299CrossRef

Shaffer GC (2008) A structural theory of WTO dispute settlement: why institutional choice lies at the center of the GMO case. N Y Univ J Int Law Politics 41:1

Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–69CrossRef

Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285CrossRef

Sparling D (2011) A framework for translating biotechnology experiences to nanotechnology. In: David K, Thompson PB (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology?: Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 176–188

Steenkamp J, Baumgartner H (1998) Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consum Res 25(1):78–90. doi:10.1086/209528 CrossRef

te Kulve H, Konrad K, Palavicino CA, Walhout B (2013) Context matters: promises and concerns regarding nanotechnologies for water and food applications. NanoEthics 7(1):17–27CrossRef

Thompson PB (2011) Nano and Bio: How are they alike? How are they different. In: David K, Thompson PB (eds) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 125–155

Van Der Pligt J (1985) Public attitudes to nuclear energy: salience and anxiety. J Environ Psychol 5(1):87–97CrossRef

Vàzquez-Salat N, Salter B, Smets G, Houdebine LM (2012) The current state of GMO governance: are we ready for GM animals? Biotechnol Adv 30(6):1336–1343. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.006 CrossRef

Yawson RM, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33(4):299–322CrossRef

Zilberman D, Schmitz A, Casterline G, Lichtenberg E, Siebert JB (1991) The economics of pesticide use and regulation. Science 253(5019):518–522CrossRef

Titel: Expert views on societal responses to different applications of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of experts in countries with different economic and regulatory environments
verfasst von: Nidhi Gupta
Arnout R. H. Fischer
Saji George
Lynn J. Frewer
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Nanoparticle Research / Ausgabe 8/2013
Print ISSN: 1388-0764
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-896X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1838-4

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2013

Zigzag-shaped nickel nanowires via organometallic template-free route

1D chain fluorescein-functionalized gold and silver nanoparticles as new optical mercury chemosensor in aqueous media

Facile fabrication of core–shell structured magnetic Fe3O4/cross-linked polyphosphazene nanocomposite particles with high stability

Novel polyhedron Y1−x Dy x VO4 nanocrystals: hydrothermal synthesis and luminescence properties

Solid-state MAS NMR, TEM, and TGA studies of structural hydroxyl groups and water in nanocrystalline apatites prepared by dry milling

Highly efficient photocatalysis by BiFeO3/α(γ)-Fe2O3 ferromagnetic nano p/n junctions formed by dopant-induced phase separation

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten