Of risks and regulations

How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology

Elizabeth Corley, Dietram A. Scheufele, Qian Hu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

53 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Even though there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty about the risks of nanotechnology, many scholars have argued that policy-making cannot be placed on hold until risk assessments are complete (Faunce, Med J Aust 186(4):189-191, 2007; Kuzma, J Nanopart Res 9(1):165-182, 2007; O'Brien and Cummins, Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(3):568-592, 2008; Powell et al., Environ Manag 42(3):426-443, 2008). In the absence of risk assessment data, decision makers often rely on scientists' input about risks and regulation to make policy decisions. The research we present here goes beyond the earlier descriptive studies about nanotechnology regulation to explore the heuristics that the leading U.S. nanoscientists use when they make policy decisions about regulating nanotechnology. In particular, we explore the relationship between nanoscientists' risk and benefit perceptions and their support for nanotech regulation. We conclude that nanoscientists are more supportive of regulating nanotechnology when they perceive higher levels of risks; yet, their perceived benefits about nanotechnology do not significantly impact their support for nanotech regulation. We also find some gender and disciplinary differences among the nanoscientists. Males are less supportive of nanotech regulation than their female peers and materials scientists are more supportive of nanotechnology regulation than scientists in other fields. Lastly, our findings illustrate that the leading U.S. nanoscientists see the areas of surveillance/privacy, human enhancement, medicine, and environment as the nanotech application areas that are most in need of new regulations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1573-1585
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Nanoparticle Research
Volume11
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2009

Fingerprint

Nanotechnology
nanotechnology
risk assessment
Risk assessment
Risk Assessment
hum
privacy
surveillance
medicine
Medicine
Policy
Form
Surveillance
Privacy
Enhancement
Heuristics
augmentation
Uncertainty

Keywords

  • Benefits
  • ELSI
  • Nanoscale science and engineering
  • Policy
  • Regulations
  • Risks
  • Scientists
  • Survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Modeling and Simulation
  • Chemistry(all)
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Bioengineering

Cite this

Of risks and regulations : How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. / Corley, Elizabeth; Scheufele, Dietram A.; Hu, Qian.

In: Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 11, No. 7, 10.2009, p. 1573-1585.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bf3e345a085a4f66ab730ed2b1818dd5,
title = "Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology",
abstract = "Even though there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty about the risks of nanotechnology, many scholars have argued that policy-making cannot be placed on hold until risk assessments are complete (Faunce, Med J Aust 186(4):189-191, 2007; Kuzma, J Nanopart Res 9(1):165-182, 2007; O'Brien and Cummins, Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(3):568-592, 2008; Powell et al., Environ Manag 42(3):426-443, 2008). In the absence of risk assessment data, decision makers often rely on scientists' input about risks and regulation to make policy decisions. The research we present here goes beyond the earlier descriptive studies about nanotechnology regulation to explore the heuristics that the leading U.S. nanoscientists use when they make policy decisions about regulating nanotechnology. In particular, we explore the relationship between nanoscientists' risk and benefit perceptions and their support for nanotech regulation. We conclude that nanoscientists are more supportive of regulating nanotechnology when they perceive higher levels of risks; yet, their perceived benefits about nanotechnology do not significantly impact their support for nanotech regulation. We also find some gender and disciplinary differences among the nanoscientists. Males are less supportive of nanotech regulation than their female peers and materials scientists are more supportive of nanotechnology regulation than scientists in other fields. Lastly, our findings illustrate that the leading U.S. nanoscientists see the areas of surveillance/privacy, human enhancement, medicine, and environment as the nanotech application areas that are most in need of new regulations.",
keywords = "Benefits, ELSI, Nanoscale science and engineering, Policy, Regulations, Risks, Scientists, Survey",
author = "Elizabeth Corley and Scheufele, {Dietram A.} and Qian Hu",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "1573--1585",
journal = "Journal of Nanoparticle Research",
issn = "1388-0764",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Of risks and regulations

T2 - How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology

AU - Corley, Elizabeth

AU - Scheufele, Dietram A.

AU - Hu, Qian

PY - 2009/10

Y1 - 2009/10

N2 - Even though there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty about the risks of nanotechnology, many scholars have argued that policy-making cannot be placed on hold until risk assessments are complete (Faunce, Med J Aust 186(4):189-191, 2007; Kuzma, J Nanopart Res 9(1):165-182, 2007; O'Brien and Cummins, Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(3):568-592, 2008; Powell et al., Environ Manag 42(3):426-443, 2008). In the absence of risk assessment data, decision makers often rely on scientists' input about risks and regulation to make policy decisions. The research we present here goes beyond the earlier descriptive studies about nanotechnology regulation to explore the heuristics that the leading U.S. nanoscientists use when they make policy decisions about regulating nanotechnology. In particular, we explore the relationship between nanoscientists' risk and benefit perceptions and their support for nanotech regulation. We conclude that nanoscientists are more supportive of regulating nanotechnology when they perceive higher levels of risks; yet, their perceived benefits about nanotechnology do not significantly impact their support for nanotech regulation. We also find some gender and disciplinary differences among the nanoscientists. Males are less supportive of nanotech regulation than their female peers and materials scientists are more supportive of nanotechnology regulation than scientists in other fields. Lastly, our findings illustrate that the leading U.S. nanoscientists see the areas of surveillance/privacy, human enhancement, medicine, and environment as the nanotech application areas that are most in need of new regulations.

AB - Even though there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty about the risks of nanotechnology, many scholars have argued that policy-making cannot be placed on hold until risk assessments are complete (Faunce, Med J Aust 186(4):189-191, 2007; Kuzma, J Nanopart Res 9(1):165-182, 2007; O'Brien and Cummins, Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(3):568-592, 2008; Powell et al., Environ Manag 42(3):426-443, 2008). In the absence of risk assessment data, decision makers often rely on scientists' input about risks and regulation to make policy decisions. The research we present here goes beyond the earlier descriptive studies about nanotechnology regulation to explore the heuristics that the leading U.S. nanoscientists use when they make policy decisions about regulating nanotechnology. In particular, we explore the relationship between nanoscientists' risk and benefit perceptions and their support for nanotech regulation. We conclude that nanoscientists are more supportive of regulating nanotechnology when they perceive higher levels of risks; yet, their perceived benefits about nanotechnology do not significantly impact their support for nanotech regulation. We also find some gender and disciplinary differences among the nanoscientists. Males are less supportive of nanotech regulation than their female peers and materials scientists are more supportive of nanotechnology regulation than scientists in other fields. Lastly, our findings illustrate that the leading U.S. nanoscientists see the areas of surveillance/privacy, human enhancement, medicine, and environment as the nanotech application areas that are most in need of new regulations.

KW - Benefits

KW - ELSI

KW - Nanoscale science and engineering

KW - Policy

KW - Regulations

KW - Risks

KW - Scientists

KW - Survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349737723&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349737723&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5

DO - 10.1007/s11051-009-9671-5

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 1573

EP - 1585

JO - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

JF - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

SN - 1388-0764

IS - 7

ER -