Scientists and public differ on views about nanotechnology regulation

June 19, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- When it comes to regulating nanotechnology - a burgeoning global industry with wide-ranging potential applications - a new study led by professors Dietram Scheufele at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Elizabeth Corley at Arizona State University (ASU) reveals that the views of U.S. nanoscientists differ from those of the general public.

Nanotechnology involves controlling matter of atomic and molecular size to develop devices of incredibly small scale, usually 100 or smaller (small enough to fit through the pores of a surgical mask). The technology is becoming more pervasive, with more than 1,000 products - ranging from more efficient solar panels to scratch-resistant automobile paint to souped-up golf clubs - already on the market. Global revenues from products using nanotechnology are estimated to reach $2.8 trillion by 2015, according to Global Industry Analysts Inc.

As reported in the online version of the Journal of Nanoparticle Research today (June 19), Scheufele and Corley found that the public tends to focus on the benefits - rather than potential environmental and - when making decisions about nanotechnology regulation, whereas scientists mainly focus on potential risks and economic values.

"We think that nanoscientists view regulations as protections for the public, and that's part of the reason why they focus on the potential risks," says Corley, the Lincoln Professor of Public Policy, Ethics and Emerging Technologies in ASU's School of Public Affairs. "On the other hand, the public seems to think of nanotechnology regulations as restricting their access to new products and other beneficial aspects of nanotechnology."

According to the study, leading U.S. nanoscientists believe regulations are most urgently needed in the areas of surveillance and privacy, human enhancement, medicine and the environment. At the same time, this group feels that other areas, including machines and computers, have little need for further regulation.

Decision-makers often rely on the input of scientists when setting policies on nanotechnology because of the high degree of scientific uncertainty - and the lack of data - about its risks.

"This difference in the way nanoscientists and the public think about regulations is important for policymakers [to take into consideration] if they are planning to include both groups in the policymaking process for nanotechnology," says Corley.

The study also reveals an interesting divide within the group of nanoscientists. Economically conservative scientists were less likely to support regulations, while economically liberal scientists were more likely to do so.

"This says less about scientists than it does about the lack of conclusive data about risks related to nanotechnology," says Scheufele, a life sciences communications professor at UW-Madison. "Policymakers need to realize that when they ask scientists to give them advice about inconclusive findings, they will get both their professional judgment and their personal views."

Data for the study came from survey questionnaires filled out by 363 of the most highly cited and most active U.S.-affiliated scientists in the field. The survey, conducted between May and June of 2007, was administered by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center. It was the first nationally representative study of nanoscientists.

Provided by University of Wisconsin

Explore further: Study Examines Public Attitudes On Nanotechnology

Related Stories

Study Examines Public Attitudes On Nanotechnology

August 30, 2005

Scientists have a rare opportunity to define public discourse over nanotechnology, if they provide citizens with easily digestible information about the emerging technology, a University of Wisconsin-Madison journalism professor ...

Nanotechnology: What's that?

September 4, 2007

Nanoscience and nanotechnology are two of the hottest fields in research, investment, and manufacturing. Some hail nanotechnology as enabling "The Next Industrial Revolution."

Recommended for you

New nanomaterial maintains conductivity in 3-D

September 4, 2015

An international team of scientists has developed what may be the first one-step process for making seamless carbon-based nanomaterials that possess superior thermal, electrical and mechanical properties in three dimensions.

Graphene made superconductive by doping with lithium atoms

September 2, 2015

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from Germany and Canada has found a way to make graphene superconductive—by doping it with lithium atoms. In their paper they have uploaded to the preprint server arXiv, the team describes ...

Making nanowires from protein and DNA

September 3, 2015

The ability to custom design biological materials such as protein and DNA opens up technological possibilities that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. For example, synthetic structures made of DNA could one day be ...

For 2-D boron, it's all about that base

September 2, 2015

Rice University scientists have theoretically determined that the properties of atom-thick sheets of boron depend on where those atoms land.

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

E_L_Earnhardt
not rated yet Jun 19, 2009
What you are doing IS dangerous! Life, itself, is a product of nanotechnology!
El_Nose
not rated yet Jun 22, 2009
E L Earnhardt -- dude where do you get this stuff every article you post on you just flame

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.