nach oben

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Erschienen in:

01.07.2019 | Research Paper

Psychological and sociological perspectives for good governance of sustainable nanotechnology development in Malaysia

verfasst von: Nur Aizat Kamarulzaman, Khai Ern Lee, Kim Shyong Siow, Mazlin Mokhtar

Erschienen in: Journal of Nanoparticle Research | Ausgabe 7/2019

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Nanotechnology is developed to improve public well-being, stimulate economic growth, and provide environmental solutions, which are essential for sustainable development. However, the uncertain risks of nanotechnology may destroy public confidence and impede nanotechnology development from facilitating sustainable development. Thus, public perception is a critical component to understand public acceptance of nanotechnology and for nanotechnology development to be well governed. Good governance of nanotechnology is vital to ensure the benefits are distributed equitably while protecting the public from the risks. Hence, this study was based on psychological and sociological approaches with intervention from moderators, that is, media coverage, technology and economic development, benefit and risk of nanoapplications, and benefit and risk information. A survey was conducted in Malaysia to determine the effects of moderators’ influence on public perceptions. The study found, based on a psychological and sociological approach, that the moderating effects of moderators influenced public perception in a manner that increased or decreased the benefit and risk perception of nanotechnology. The results later serve as an input for recommending good governance strategies for applying nanotechnology to sustainable development.

Vorheriger Artikel On the transformation mechanism of polyethylene glycol- and citrate-coated silver nanocolloids under sunlight exposure

Nächster Artikel An evaluation of non-ionic surfactants on the cytotoxicity and activity of poly(butyl acrylate/styrene) nanoparticle emulsions

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

Binder AR, Hillback ED, Brossard D (2016) Conflict or caveats? Effects of media portrayals of scientific uncertainty on audience perceptions of new technologies. Risk Anal 36(4):831–846CrossRef

Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Policy Res 30(5):512–548CrossRef

Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future: report of the world commission on environment and development. United Nations Commission 4(1):300

Capon A, Gillespie J, Rolfe M, Smith W (2015) Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes. BMC Public Health 15(1):424CrossRef

Chuah ASF, Leong AD, Cummings CL, Ho SS (2018) Label it or ban it? Public perceptions of nano-food labels and propositions for banning nano-food applications. J Nanopart Res 2:1–17

Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):221–239CrossRef

Conroy SJ, Emerson TLN (2004) Ethics and religion : as a predictor of religiosity business ethical awareness students. J Bus Ethics 50(4):383–396CrossRef

Corley EA, Scheufele DA (2010) Outreach going wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences. The Scientist 24(1):22

Department of Statistics Malaysia (2010) Population distribution and basic demographic characteristic report 2010, Putrajaya

Douglas M (1978) Cultural bias. Royal Anthropological Institute, p.302. Available at: http://www.itto.or.jp/live/PageDisplayHandler?pageId=270

Forloni G (2012) Responsible nanotechnology development. J Nanopart Res 14(8):1–17CrossRef

Gehrke P (2018) Government regulation of nanotechnology: imperfectly essential. In Nano - publics: communicating nanotechnology applications, risks, and regulations. South Carolina: Palgrave Pivot, pp. 51–63

Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Gleiche, M., Hoffschulz, H. & Lenhert, S., 2006. Nanotechnology in consumer products, Available at: https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report64.pdf

Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. The Guilford Press, New York

Oh SH (2009) Perceptions of nanotechnology in Canada and South Korea. The University of Manitoba. Available at: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0165115300023299

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

Hope DS & Petersen PE (2007) A proposal to advance understanding of nanotechnology’s sosial impact. In M. C. Roco & W. S. Bainbridge, eds. Nanotechnology: societal implications individual perspectives. National Science Foundation, pp. 109–113. Available at: http://www.wtec.org/SocietalImplications/2/si2vii_report.pdf

Hurni H, Wiesmann U (2014) Transdisciplinarity in practice: experience from a concept-based research programme addressing global change and sustainable development. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 23(3):275–277CrossRef

Isaacs JA, Alpert CL, Bates M, Bosso CJ, Eckelman MJ, Linkov I, Walker WC (2015) Engaging stakeholders in nano-EHS risk governance. Environment Systems and Decisions 35(1):24–28CrossRef

Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4(February):2–5

Kamarulzaman NA, Lee KE, Siow KS (2018) Public perception of nanotechnology for good governance: a conceptual framework for psychological and sociological approaches. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 16(2):168–174

Kass G 2001 Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology (153)

Kishimoto A (2010) Public perception of nanotechnologies in Japan from 2005 to 2009, Japan

Lee KE, Mokhtar M, Goh CT, Singh H, Chan PW (2015) Initiatives and challenges of a chemical industries council in a developing country: the case of Malaysia. J Clean Prod 86:417–423CrossRef

Lemanczyk S 2014 Science and national pride : the Iranian press coverage of. Sci Commun, 36(2), pp.194–218CrossRef

Leung Y (2007) Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine. Springer Science+Business Media, New York

Lin SF, Lin H s, Wu Y y (2013) Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Sci Educ Technol 22(4):548–559CrossRef

Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2016) Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation : what role for the social sciences ? Sci Commun 27(2):268–291CrossRef

Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government, Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Informed+Public+Perceptions+of+Nanotechnology+and+Trust+in+Government#0

Magill G (1992) Theology in business ethics: appealing to the religious imagination. J Bus Ethics 11(2):129–135CrossRef

Mamadouh V (1999) Grid-group cultural theory: an introduction. GeoJournal 47(3):395–409CrossRef

Maynard AD (2006) Nanotechnology : assessing the risks. Nano Today 1(2):22–33CrossRef

Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18(6):493–520CrossRef

El Moussaouy A (2018) Environmental nanotechnology and education for sustainability : recent progress and perspective. In: Handbook of environmental materials management. Springer, Cham, pp 1–27

Petersen A, Anderson A, Wilkinzon C, Allan S (2007) Nanotechnologies, risk and society. Health Risk Soc 9(2):117–124CrossRef

Pieper MH (1989) The heuristic paradigm: a unifying and comprehensive approach to social work research. Smith College Studies in Social Work 60(1):8–34CrossRef

René Zimmer, Rolf Hertel, G.-F.B. & Risk (2010) Risk perception of nanotechnology – analysis of media coverage, Berlin: BfR Wissenschaft. Available at: http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/350/risk_perception_of_nanotechnology_analysis_of_media_coverage.pdf

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

Renn O, Swaton E (1984) Psychological and sociological approaches to study risk perception. Environ Int 10:557–575CrossRef

Rist S, Chidambaranathan M, Escobar C, Wiesmann U, Zimmermann A (2007) Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: the role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. J Rural Stud 23(1):23–37CrossRef

Roco M, Harthorn B, Guston D, Shapira P (2011) Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. J Nanopart Res 13:441–488

Roco M & Bainbridge WS (2001) Societal implication of nanoscience and nanotechnology, Virginia

Roco MC (2001) International strategy for nanotechnology research and development. J Nanopart Res 3(5–6):353–360CrossRef

Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanopart Res 7(1):1–13CrossRef

Rotberg RI (2014) Good Governance Means Performance and Results. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 27(3):511–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12084 CrossRef

Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2008) Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: “upstream” towards sustainability. J Clean Prod 16(8–9):1010–1013CrossRef

Roosen J, Bieberstein A, Blanchemanche S, Goddard E, Marette S, Vandermoere F (2015) Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food. Food Policy 52:75–83CrossRef

Saidi T (2018) Perceived risks and benefits of nanomedicine : a case study of an anti-tuberculosis drug. Global Health Innovation 1(1):1–7CrossRef

Schütz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17:369–379CrossRef

Siegrist M (2010) Predicting the future: review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 16(4):837–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2010.501255 CrossRef

Siegrist M, Keller C (2011) Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal 31(11):1762–1769CrossRef

Simon HA (1977) The logic of heuristic decision making. In Models of discovery. and other topics in the methods of science. D. Reidel Publisihing Company, pp. 154–175

Sjöberg L, Moen B.-E & Rundmo T (2004) Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research, Trondheim: Rotunde. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Explaining+risk+perception.+An+evaluation+of+the+psychometric+paradigm+in+risk+perception+research#0

Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. What is our society willing to pay for safety? Science, vol 165, pp 1232–1238

Tangau WM (2017) Shaping the Malaysian industry for the 4th Industrial Revolution. , pp.1–6. Available at: https://www.akademisains.gov.my/download/YBM KEYNOTE ADDRESS @SIAP CONFERENCE.pdf

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, New Series 211(4481):453–458 Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1685855

Tyshenko MG (2014) Nanotechnology framing in the Canadian national news media. Technol Soc 37(1):38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.07.001 CrossRef

UNESCAP, 2009. What is good governance ? United Nations Economic and social Comission for Asia and the Pacific, pp.1–3. Available at: http://www.unescap.org/

West GH, Lippy BE, Cooper MR, Marsick D, Burrelli LG, Griffin KN, Segrave AM (2016) Toward responsible development and effective risk management of nano-enabled products in the U.S. construction industry. J Nanopart Res 18(2):1–27CrossRef

Wildavsky A (1987) Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: a cultural theory of preference formation. Am Polit Sci Rev 81(1):3. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1960776?origin=crossref–21CrossRef

Titel: Psychological and sociological perspectives for good governance of sustainable nanotechnology development in Malaysia
verfasst von: Nur Aizat Kamarulzaman
Khai Ern Lee
Kim Shyong Siow
Mazlin Mokhtar
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2019
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Nanoparticle Research / Ausgabe 7/2019
Print ISSN: 1388-0764
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-896X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-019-4583-5

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 7/2019

Encapsulation of clozapine into polycaprolactone nanoparticles as a promising strategy of the novel nanoformulation of the active compound

On the transformation mechanism of polyethylene glycol- and citrate-coated silver nanocolloids under sunlight exposure

One-dimensional hierarchical CeVO4/TiO2 heterostructures with enhanced photocatalytic performance

High catalytic activity of supported Au nanoparticles assisted with the surface selective adsorption

Promoting photocarrier separation for photoelectrochemical water splitting in α-Fe2O3@C

Carbon nanotubes grafted with sulfonated polyacrylamide as a heterogeneous catalyst for the preparation of bis(indolyl)methanes

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten