TY - JOUR
T1 - Classifying US nano-scientists
T2 - Of cautious innovators, regulators, and technology optimists
AU - Kim, Youngjae
AU - Corley, Elizabeth
AU - Scheufele, Dietram A.
N1 - Funding Information:
This paper is based on work supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (grant SES-0531194) and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Graduate School (grant 135GL82). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the University of Wisconsin-Madison Graduate School.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Government regulations to address technological risks are important for the successful development and application of nanotechnology, but there is an ongoing debate in the USA about who is responsible for the regulation of nanotechnology. In a mail survey of leading US nano-scientists, we examine scientists' perceptions about nano-regulation, including the government level (local, national, or international) at which the scientists believe nanotechnology regulation should be implemented. This regulatory discussion is important because international regulations are often difficult to adopt and implement; yet, local or state-level regulations could lead to the nanotechnology equivalent of the pollution haven hypothesis. We conclude that leading US nano-scientists have varying perceptions about nanotechnology regulations with some scientists supporting local regulations, but most scientists supporting national-level or international-level regulations. Additionally, our results show the emergence of three distinct categories of nanoscientists that have unique perspectives on nano-regulation: 'cautious innovators', 'nanoregulators', and 'technology optimists'.
AB - Government regulations to address technological risks are important for the successful development and application of nanotechnology, but there is an ongoing debate in the USA about who is responsible for the regulation of nanotechnology. In a mail survey of leading US nano-scientists, we examine scientists' perceptions about nano-regulation, including the government level (local, national, or international) at which the scientists believe nanotechnology regulation should be implemented. This regulatory discussion is important because international regulations are often difficult to adopt and implement; yet, local or state-level regulations could lead to the nanotechnology equivalent of the pollution haven hypothesis. We conclude that leading US nano-scientists have varying perceptions about nanotechnology regulations with some scientists supporting local regulations, but most scientists supporting national-level or international-level regulations. Additionally, our results show the emergence of three distinct categories of nanoscientists that have unique perspectives on nano-regulation: 'cautious innovators', 'nanoregulators', and 'technology optimists'.
KW - Nanotechnology regulation
KW - Risk perceptions
KW - Scientist attitudes
KW - Survey data collection
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871395227&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871395227&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3152/030234212X13113405157822
DO - 10.3152/030234212X13113405157822
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84871395227
SN - 0302-3427
VL - 39
SP - 30
EP - 38
JO - Science and Public Policy
JF - Science and Public Policy
IS - 1
ER -