Contents:
While familiarity was associated with a reduction in risk perception, we cannot rule out the influence cultural factors may have on these results. It should be noted that some believe values [ 20 , 45 ] are more important factors to consider.
Another important factor to consider is message framing with qualitative studies showing, post discussion, an increase [ 49 ] or decrease [ 38 , 50 ] in perceived risk depending on how the message was framed. However, it can also not be ruled out that this disparity is in part induced by measurement bias, that being the measure of moderate familiarity is classified at a lower knowledge base than those who have a professional interest in nanotechnology.
Trust has long been promoted as an important factor associated with risk perception [ 51 ]. Trust reduces the complexity of decision making or opinion formation by accepting the risk of relying on the judgement of another party [ 52 ].
Models of trust include the causal chain mode of trust, which advocates that the direction of the association between trust and risk perception is from trust to risk perception, i. Within the broad trust concept, it has been argued that pre-existing knowledge, type of risk and type of trust may all influence the strength of the trust — risk perception relationship [ 51 , 54 ]. Trust has been shown as a significant factor when it comes to nanoparticle risk perception [ 24 ] and is an important part of the framing of public policy towards the use of nanomaterials [ 5 , 10 , 20 ].
The trust the public have in government agencies regarding nanotechnology was found to be lower than that of people working in nanotechnology based industries and nanotechnology researchers [ 23 ]. Our fourth hypothesis compared perceptions of trust between the public and academic, business and government respondents. It suggested that the trust the public vests in scientists, the health department, journalists and politicians will be less than that held by business, academic, and government officials.
We partially confirmed this hypothesis by finding some significant differences between public, and academic and government levels of trust. The public do have less trust in scientists and the health department to keep them safe from any potential health effects of manufactured nanomaterials than those working in nanotechnology in academia or government. Studies have shown that the Australian public is more likely to trust scientists and scientific institutions, followed by government agencies with industry and mass media receiving the least amount of trust [ 25 , 26 ].
Public trust in business leaders [ 27 ], science and consumer protection agencies [ 28 ] and government agencies [ 29 ] have all been associated with decreased nano risk perception. We partially confirmed this view in our sixth hypothesis where we found that those in the public who have higher levels of trust in scientists, the health department and politicians to keep them safe from any potential health effects of manufactured nanomaterials were significantly more likely to perceive lower levels of risk of manufactured nanomaterials to their health and for most products.
Surprisingly, the levels of trust the public have in journalists to keep them safe from any possible health effects of nanomaterials was not associated with differing perceptions of risk. This result is unexpected, given the concern expressed over the relatively large influence the media is likely to have on public opinion in this area [ 5 , 30 , 55 ]. If the causal chain mode of trust, where trust affects risk perception, is applied to these results [ 52 , 53 ], Australian scientists and health department officials are best placed to communicate to the public about the risks and benefits of nanomaterials.
Our study contained a number of strengths. We provided a neutral definition of nanotechnology and nanomaterials. Given the potential influence framing may have on the perception of this issue, we ensured neither definition suggested benefits or risks.
The concept of risk was presented in a holistic context. Respondents were asked to consider both the risks and benefits when providing a level of risk, with the Likert response scale ranging from minus two agree strongly to plus two disagree strongly to try to capture this balance. Risk and benefit has been justified as an inverse relationship [ 56 ], and asking about risk in this manner has been undertaken elsewhere [ 45 , 46 ]. Finally questions within topics were randomised and all questions that were compared across stakeholders were repeated verbatim to ensure comparability.
Our study has a number of limitations. Measurement bias may have been introduced if those who responded to our study were statistically different from those who declined to participate. In an anonymous CATI survey it is not possible to contact those who refused to participate to determine this bias. Information on academic, government and business contacts in the area of nanotechnology are difficult to acquire and all reasonable attempts were undertaken to ensure these were complete.
However it is possible that our sample frame for academic, business and government did not include all those involved in the academic, business and government nanotechnology area in Australia. Also, the small number of respondents for business and government provided little power to determine associations. The response rate was similar or higher than for other groups, the sample size was an artefact of the small number of people employed in these categories. Finally, given the number of comparisons undertaken in our analysis a significance value of 0.
Where the sample size allowed public and academic we also considered a significance level of 0. While the risk of a type 1 error was likely, many of our comparisons and conclusions were made across a range stakeholders or applications, with statistical significance consistent across these multiple analyses, giving us greater confidence that the effect we were detecting was real.
The Australian public perceives greater risks from manufactured nanomaterials and shows less trust in scientists and the health department to provide protection from possible health effects than academic, business and government stakeholders in the nanotechnology sector. Policy makers should be aware of these risk and trust disparities and address public sentiment by treating nanotechnology applications in the higher risk areas with greater caution.
Risk communication is best placed in the hands of trusted scientists. Yearley S. Bridging the science? Environ Plann C Gov Policy. Dietrich H, Schibeci R.
Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Underst Sci. Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim Pol. Of risks and regulations: how leading U. J Nanopart Res. Duncan TV. The communication challenges presented by nanofoods. Nat Nano. Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology. Deliberative disjunction: expert and public understanding of outcome uncertainty. Risk Anal. Progression of occupational risk management with advances in nanomaterials.
J Occup Environ Hyg. Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: emerging technologies. Emerging Challenges Risk Analysis. Shatkin JA, North W. Perspectives on risks of nanomaterials and nanotechnologies: advancing the science. Risk Characterization for Nanotechnology.
Australian Office of Nanotechnology. The dose makes the poison. Nano-silver — a review of available data and knowledge gaps in human and environmental risk assessment. Beaudrie CH, Kandlikar M. Horses for courses: risk information and decision making in the regulation of nanomaterials. Canady RA. The uncertainty of nanotoxicology: report of a society for risk analysis workshop. The New toxicology of sophisticated materials: nanotoxicology and beyond. Toxicol Sci. Science policy considerations for responsible nanotechnology decisions.
Vogel D. Siegrist M. Predicting the future: review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. Evolving scientific research governance in Australia: a case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Social Psychology Research Unit. Cobb M, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature.
Sci Commun September 14 doi Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. European Commission : Eurobarometer ZA Data file Version 4.
Australian Election Study, Canberra: The Australian National University; Population Survey Development. Agresti A.
Shortly after establishing the program, the company began its first round of ethics training for the entire workforce, starting with the CEO and senior executives. Now in its third round, training for senior executives focuses on decision making, the challenges of balancing multiple responsibilities, and compliance with laws and regulations critical to the company.