Tag Archives: Peter Tomanovich

65 + and another poll about nanotechnology awareness

As soon as you reach the age of 65, you cease to develop as a human being and nobody really cares about your opinions. The same is true of you prior to the age of 18. You are of interest from 18 to 29, more interest from 30-39, and 40-49 but by the age of 50, you hold diminishing interest (50-64) and after that it almost disappers. At least, that’s what I’m deducing from these standard age categories.

We don’t think a 25 year old and a 45 year old belong in the same category but have no problem putting a 65 year old and an 85 year old in the same category.  Interesting, non?

While the latest nanotechnology poll from Harris Interactive doesn’t break any new ground regarding age categories or ways to ask about nanotechnology awareness (How much have you heard about nanotechnology?) or results (low awareness), Harris offers a very interesting proviso about the poll results,

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between June 18 and 25, 2012 among 2,467 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. [emphases mine] All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

I don’t know if this is a standard wording or if it’s unique to Harris but it’s certainly the first time I’ve seen a statement that the term ‘margin of error’ is misleading. Coupling it with a frank description of the possible errors and suggesting there may be even more sources for error is refreshing. I also very much appreciate the fact that they’ve shown the questions although I  would like to confirm the order in which they were asked (which I imagine is in the order shown).

A Sept. 6, 2012 news item on Nanowerk summarizes the poll results,

Awareness of nanotechnology is still low, but there are some surprising differences in opinion. Perhaps not surprisingly, reports of having heard at least a little about nanotechnology were significantly higher among all sub-65 age groups (ranging from 37% to 46%) than among those in the 65+ age group (26%). However, those older Americans aware of nanotechnology were more optimistic about its potential, with a stronger likelihood than any other age group to indicate a belief that the potential benefits of nanotechnology outweigh the risks (58%, vs. 32%-36% among other age groups).

The Sept. 6, 2012 press release from Harris Interactive (which originated the news item) provides more details including the wording of the questions and tables summarizing the data. Here are a few tidbits from the press release,

Older Americans aware of nanotechnology were significantly more interested than other age groups in seeing it applied to healthcare (80%-83% among those ages 50+, vs. 42%-66% among younger groups), energy production (63%-74% among those 40+, vs. 43%-53% among those under 40), whereas younger adults familiar with nanotechnology were more interested in seeing nanotechnology applied to clothes (16%-19% among those 18-39, vs. 4%-9% among those 40+) and skincare (20% and 10%-12%, respectively) than the older groups. The youngest age group was also significantly more likely than other groups to select “None of these” (15% among those 18-29, vs. 2%-6% among those 30+).

“Though it may initially seem counterintuitive, it actually makes sense that those aware of nanotechnology within the 65+ age group tend to believe that the benefits of nanotechnology will outweigh the risks, as the prevalence of worry in general tends to decline with age,” said Dr. Kathleen Eggleson, leader of the Nano Impacts Intellectual Community at the University of Notre Dame. “Older Americans also have firsthand experience with the emergence of many different technologies that have brought new benefits to their lives.”

“These data may help stakeholders nationwide make informed decisions, plan investments, and tailor education, advocacy, and marketing efforts in the nanotechnology field,” said Peter Tomanovich, Research Director, Health Care at Harris Interactive.

The poll also has information (taking all provisos into account) about US regional differences in awareness and sources for information amongst those who are aware here.

There is no indication in the press release that this poll was requested or paid for by any Harris Interactive client. Based on Tomanovich’s comments, the poll seems to  have been conducted at the company’s own expense as a means of gaining some attention within their government and business client base.

In any event, the poll provides an interesting contrast to the recent article in Nature about nanotechnology and terrorism (mentioned in my Aug. 31, 2012 posting) which suggested there may be a rising tide of violence against nanoscience and nanotechnology based on the bombings in Mexico and other incidents on the international stage.