Small differences in how a technology is defined can make a big difference in how the public feels about it

Mar 11, 2013 by Bob Mitchell

(Phys.org) —Even small tweaks in how scientists describe scientific breakthroughs can significantly change how the public perceives their work, a new study indicates. Researchers found that showing individuals different definitions of nanotechnology led to differences in how strongly the subjects supported this emerging area of science and in their motivation to learn more about it.

Participants in the University of Wisconsin-Madison study were given one of three definitions, each of which framed differently. One definition highlighted nanotechnology's novel applications, another focused on its risks and benefits, and a third touched on both applications and risks and benefits. The researchers then assessed the participants' level of support for nanotechnology and their level of engagement—their interest in learning more.

The researchers found that if the definition highlighted nanotechnology's useful applications, readers were more likely to support nanotechnology but weren't motivated to gather more information. If the definition focused on risks and benefits, readers were more interested in learning more but less likely to support nanotechnology.

"This has important implications for those interested in engaging members of the public in scientific issues," says Ashley Anderson, now a research fellow in the Center for Communication at George Mason University.

It creates a paradox for scientists who want to encourage both support and increased interest in their work, notes Dietram Scheufele, UW-Madison professor of life sciences communication. "Explaining nanotechnology in terms of applications promotes acceptance, but motivation to learn more is triggered by mentioning potential risks."

Whether participants had a background in science changed the outcome to an extent, says Dominique Brossard, UW-Madison professor of life sciences communication.

"Changing the definition did not change the attitudes toward the technology for those who had a college degree in science," Brossard says. "It did, however, make a difference among those who have a college degree in a non-science-related field and those who do not have a college degree. And different definitions impacted these groups' to learn more in different ways."

This work appears in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

Explore further: Designer's toolkit for dynamic DNA nanomachines

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Online science news needs careful study, researchers say

Jan 03, 2013

A science-inclined audience and wide array of communications tools make the Internet an excellent opportunity for scientists hoping to share their research with the world. But that opportunity is fraught with unintended consequences, ...

Recommended for you

Designer's toolkit for dynamic DNA nanomachines

16 hours ago

The latest DNA nanodevices created at the Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM)—including a robot with movable arms, a book that opens and closes, a switchable gear, and an actuator—may be intriguing ...

Simple method of binding pollutants in water

20 hours ago

New types of membrane adsorbers remove unwanted particles from water and also, at the same time, dissolved substances such as the hormonally active bis-phenol A or toxic lead. To do this, researchers at the ...

Gold nanoparticles for targeted cancer treatment

20 hours ago

The use of tiny drug-loaded nanocarriers for the safe, targeted delivery of drugs to designated parts of the body has received much press in recent years. Human trials of nanocarriers targeting pancreatic ...

User comments : 0

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.