Transcript Nanotechnology Risk Assessment & the Public: Quantifying

SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Nanotechnology: Reducing Uncertainty
Synthesizing Two Views
Grant E. Gardner
Ph.D. Candidate - Science Education
PCOST Associated Member
Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting, Boston, MA
December 10, 2008
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Uncertainty, Knowledge, & Risk
Perception
• How do we reduce uncertainty?
• Increasing expert knowledge
• Nanotechnology content
• Risk factors and hazard likelihoods
• Decision-making about risk
• Transfer aspects of that knowledge to the public
• Communication & Education
• What can integrated research from communication and
education tell us about reducing uncertainty surrounding risk
and understanding risk perception of nanotechnology?
• What do we know and where should we go?
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Two Views
• Public Communication of Science & Technology (PCOST) White
Paper for the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office
(NNCO) - Communicating Risk of Emergent Technology in the
21st Century
• Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) initiative to
integrate nanotechnology themes into engineering curriculum
• General engineering
• Engineering with nanotechnology
• Nanotechnology engineering & society
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
When Worlds Collide:
Reducing Uncertainty
• Risk communication
•
•
•
•
•
Expert: Risk communicator or scientist
Target Audience: General public
Goals - Scientiating/Public understanding of science
Models - Knowledge deficit model
Interventions - Public communication event
• Science education
•
•
•
•
•
Expert: Instructor
Target Audience: Students (undergraduate)
Goals - Developing scientific literacy
Models - Knowledge & attitudes
Interventions - Science-technology-society (STS) & socio-scientific
issues (SSI)
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Public Knowledge of Nano
• Knowledge is low and from minimal sources
• Attitudes toward nano exist and are framed by benefit
perception
• The knowledge-attitude relationship depends on the intervention
and the values attached to the technology
• What is the primary source for nano knowledge in the general
public?
• Are attitudes toward a particular tech or toward S&T in general?
How do variables need to be specified?
• Can knowledge dissemination keep pace with the speed of
technological development?
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Expert Knowledge of Nano
• Knowledge gap between expert and general public exists
• Differential interpretations of uncertainty
• Uncertainty amplifies perception of risk and promotes
precautionary behavior
• Most science experts don’t concern themselves with the risks of
emerging technologies
• How will positive attitudes translate to behavior when nano
consumer products become more widespread?
• When it comes to nano, how are we to define the experts?
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Nature of Science
• Science knowledge is not equal to content knowledge
• “Local” knowledge versus global knowledge
• The nature of uncertainty in science is not well understood
• How successful is education at teaching uncertainty in NOS?
• What is “local” knowledge in nano, because it spans multiple
science domains?
• How much knowledge is enough knowledge to sway
perceptions? Is there a threshold?
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Nature of Nanotechnology
• Nanotechnology is not a singular technology and does not have
a singular class or risks
• Nanotechnology is “small” and difficult to experience
• There are no mental models of nanotech
• Can those applications that are considered “less risky” be used
effectively in risk communication and introductory education?
• How does this inability to directly experience nano affect attitude
formation?
• What is the efficacy of previous emergent tech to understanding
nano?
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
T able 3
Risk and Benefit Ranking Profiles
R isk
M e an
R anking
S core
B ullets
3 .28
M e d. N anobots
2 .83
F uel S torage
2 .79
Tumor Irrad.
2 .67
M e d. Release
2 .57
A ntibiotic F ood
2 .41
P roduct Track.
2 .34
S unscreen
2 .31
Wa ter Filters
2 .25
Freshnes s S ens .
2 .11
B uild. M aterials
2 .04
D ata Chips
1 .75
Note: R es pons e options ranged from
to 5 = very high risk or benefit
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
Benefit
M e an
R anking
S core
Tumor Irrad.
4 .53
M e d. Release
4 .43
M e d. N anobots
4 .30
B uild. M aterials
4 .21
Wa ter Filters
4 .21
D ata Chips
4 .14
F uel S torage
4 .06
A ntibiotic F ood
3 .88
Freshnes s S ens .
3 .65
S unscreen
3 .62
P roduct Trac king
2 .82
B ullets
2 .81
1 = no ris k or benefit
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Changing Perceptions
• Risk perception is resistant to change. Benefit perception may
not be.
• Public engagement has limitations often not seen in formal
education
• Know your audience (motivation, concerns, etc.)
• How can each of these venues inform each other about public
acceptance?
• How do audiences differ?
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
T able 2
How do students'perceptionsof nanotechnologychangefollowing
three different types of instruction?
P re-Sur vey
Post-Sur vey
Mean(SD)
Mean(SD)
Difference
t
p
General Engineering
(n = 36)
Risk P erception
Benefit P erception
2.45(.43)
3.82(.48)
2.37(.54)
3.96(.62)
-0.08
0.14
0.85
-1.41
.399
.167
Engineering w/
Nanotechnology
(n = 55)
Risk P erception
Benefit P erception
2.50(.43)
3.78(.45)
2.47(.54)
3.75(.52)
-0.03
-0.03
0.34
0.46
.734
.651
Nanotechnology in
Engineering & Society
(n = 11)
Risk P erception
Benefit P erception
2.86(.63)
3.28(.33)
2.52(.47)
3.70(.59)
-0.34
0.42
1.53
-2.33
Note: Response options ranged from 1 = no risk or benefit to 5 = very high risk or benefit
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
.156
.042 *
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Decision-Making About Risk
• Increase knowledge does not increase decision-making ability
• Uncertainty breed reliance on heuristics and biases
• Affect, anchoring & adjustment, availability heuristics
• How much does knowledge affect not just attitudes but decision
making?
• What are the roles of trust, fear, and belief in mediating perceptualbased decision-making?
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Funding
• This work was supported in part by grants from the National
Science Foundation:
• NSF 0809470: Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team
(NIRT) - Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement
• http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.html
• NSF 0634222: Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) Teaching Nanoscale Engineering Across Undergraduate
Disciplines
• Thanks to:
• Dr. David M. Berube - Communication Dept. NCSU
• Dr. M. Gail Jones - Science Education Dept. NCSU
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty
SRA 2009
Boston, MA
Thank You!
Grant E. Gardner
North Carolina State University
Department of Science Education
[email protected]
Nano: Reducing Uncertainty