Tag Archives: Andrew Binder

Public indifferent to nanotechnology risks?

According to a recent study the public isn’t concerned about nanotechnology risks, from the April 12, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

A new study (“Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks” [published online in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research, DOI: 10.1007/s11051-011-0325, behind a paywall]) finds that the general public thinks getting a suntan poses a greater public health risk than nanotechnology or other nanoparticle applications. The study, from North Carolina State University, compared survey respondents’ perceived risk of nanoparticles with 23 other public-health risks.
…

“For example, 19 of the other public-health risks were perceived as more hazardous, including suntanning and drinking alcohol,” says Dr. Andrew Binder, an assistant professor of communication at NC State and co-author of a paper describing the study. “The only things viewed as less risky were cell-phone use, blood transfusions, commercial air travel and medical X-rays.”

In fact, 60 percent of respondents felt that nanoparticles posed either no health risk or only a slight health risk.

In reading this news item I noticed that they mentioned suntans as being perceived as more high risk than nanoparticles. It seems to me that there’s been a great deal more work done to convince people that getting a suntan is a risky proposition compared to warning people about nanoparticles. Huge, huge amounts of money have been spent on public education and publicity about the risks posed by exposure to sunlight. Of course, it took a lot of work and money to determine that exposure to sunlight can pose risks in the first place. At this point, we don’t know very much about nanoparticles at all.

Flaws in opinion polls about science

Leave a reply

If you’ve ever had the experience of trying to answer an opinion poll and wanting to scream in frustration because the questions are vague or cover too much ground, this is the study for you: Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science published online in the journal Public Understanding of Science, Jan. 6, 2011. From the Jan. 13, 2011 news item on physorg.com,

A new study from North Carolina State University highlights a major flaw in attempting to use a single survey question to assess public opinion on science issues. Researchers found that people who say that risks posed by new science fields outweigh benefits often actually perceive more benefits than risks when asked more detailed questions.

“We set out to determine whether we can accurately assess public opinion on complex science issues with one question, or if we need to break the issue down into questions on each of the issue’s constituent parts,” says Dr. Andrew Binder, an assistant professor of communication at NC State and lead author of the study. “We found that, to varying degrees, accuracy really depends on breaking it down into multiple questions for people.” [emphasis mine]

To assess the problematic nature of a single-question surveys, the researchers developed two surveys; one focused on nanotechnology and the other on biofuels. In each survey, respondents were asked an overarching question: do the risks associated with nanotechnology/biofuels outweigh the benefits; do the benefits outweigh the risks; or are the risks and benefits approximately the same? The researchers then asked survey participants a series of questions about specific risks and benefits associated with nanotechnology or biofuels.

Precisely! Your answer to questions like these tends to be informed by the situation. In other words, you might see a benefit outweighing a risk where self-cleaning windows are concerned but not where transgenic goats (e.g. goats with spider genes) are concerned. Both of these are nanotechnology oriented, the windows being an application and the spidery goats supplying milk that can be spun for nanotechnology applications.

The article is behind a paywall but you can find out more about the study at nanopublic, Dietram Scheufele’s blog (from his Jan. 14 2011 posting, [note: I cannot link to directly to the post so you may need to scroll down or search for it by date],

Studies tapping public perceptions of the risks and benefits surrounding new technologies have long relied on a single-item measure asking respondents a variant of the following question: “Do the risks associated with technology x outweigh the benefits; do the benefits outweigh the risks; or are the risks and benefits approximately the same?” More recently, we raised concerns about this single item measure and suggested that — especially for nanotechnology — a more application-specific look at risk perceptions might be useful.

Dietram is one of the paper’s authors.

Public science engagement and consensus

1 Reply

A new piece of research seems to be suggesting that there’s not much point to trying to build public consensus on certain kinds of science and technology issues. From the news item on Nanowerk,

When it comes to public issues pertaining to science and technology, “talking it out” doesn’t seem to work. A new study from North Carolina State University shows that the more people discuss the risks and benefits associated with scientific endeavors, the more entrenched they become in their viewpoint – and the less likely they are to see the merit of other viewpoints.

“This research highlights the difficulty facing state and federal policy leaders when it comes to high-profile science and technology issues, such as stem cell research or global warming,” says Dr. Andrew Binder, an assistant professor of communication at NC State and lead author of the study. “Government agencies view research on these issues as vital and necessary for the country’s future, but building public consensus for that research is becoming increasingly difficult.”

It seems that government agencies’ perspectives on building consensus focusses on agreement to whatever decision has been arrived at by the agency,

… researchers focused on public debate related to the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), which the federal government discussed building in one of six sites around the country. Some members of the public opposed building a facility housing highly infectious animal diseases in their community. …

The researchers conducted surveys of residents living near the proposed sites to collect data on people’s perceptions of the potential risks and benefits associated with NBAF. Specifically, the results showed that, among people who opposed the facility, the more an individual discussed the issue with other people in their community, the more firmly entrenched he/she became in his/her perception of greater risks and fewer benefits. Conversely, among those who supported the facility, increased discussion led to an increased perception of benefits and a decreased perception of risks.

This research was done as part of an overarching grant project funded by the National Science Foundation, which is aimed at understanding the public opinion and policy dynamics surrounding site-selections for federal research facilities.

“This work will likely inform future decision-making on how federal agencies engage the public in regard to large-scale research initiatives,” Binder says. [emphasis mine]

So, the researchers observed that the more people talked about the situation, the more entrenched their attitudes became. The proposed outcome is that federal agencies will use this research information when considering future public engagement activities.

This is not a promising development from two angles. First, it seems likely federal agencies will not wish to engage with the public if there’s a chance that opposition will harden in a situation where opposition to an agency’s plans outweighs support. Second, there’s the implication that social science is being used to determine if a public engagement practice serves federal agencies’ needs.

José López’s article, Bridging the Gaps: Science Fiction in Nanotechnology, makes the point that science fiction fulfills the function of providing a critique of emerging sciences and technologies where the social sciences and humanities may have been co-opted in pursuit of ‘consensus’,

Moreover, the novum also assigns the social sciences and humanities the function of analyzing and contributing to the management of social processes necessary to arrive at the proposed future. (p. 349 of López article in Nanotechnology Challenges; Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society, edited by Joachim Schummer and Davis Baird, 2006)

(NOTE: Novum is a device (a scientifically-plausible innovation) used in science fiction writing to create new worlds. In this case, López is suggesting that the ‘novum’ is being used in real life as per nanotechnology and, by implication, other emerging technologies. See a Wikipedia essay about the novum, here.)

Further on, López quotes Samuel R. Delaney about the function that literary science fiction provides,

Science fiction is not about the future; it uses the future as a narrative convention to present significant distortion of the present. (p. 352 of López article)

For another take on Binder’s research, you can check out the November 4, 2010 posting on Dietram Scheufele’s blog, nanopublic.

FrogHeart

Commentary about nanotech, science policy and communication, society, and the arts

Tag Archives: Andrew Binder

Public indifferent to nanotechnology risks?

Flaws in opinion polls about science