professor david m. berube. director – pcost; ncsu ges ... · (1-- 7) rank nanomaterials mean sd 1...

Professor David M. Berube.Director – PCOST; NCSU GES Research Scholar.NSA LAS Funded Investigator; US FDA RCAC.Manager, Center Emerging Technologies, LLC.

SoT Webinar, November 18, 2014SoT Webinar, November 18, 2014

(1-- 7)Rank Nanomaterials Mean SD1 Silver 4.93 1.569

(1 7)

2 Titanium dioxide 4.90 1.589

3 Silicon dioxide 4.72 1.556

4 Zinc oxide 4.66 1.4715 Carbon nanotubes 4.48 1.639

6 Iron & Iron oxides 4.45 1.549

7 Aluminum oxide 4.38 1.498

8 Nanoclays 4.17 1.6059 Cerium oxide 4.10 1.44810 Copper & copper oxides 4 03 1 56910 Copper & copper oxides 4.03 1.569

Rank Nanomaterial application Mean SD

d l & 2 031 Zinc oxide: Electronics & optics 5.21 1.0312 Silver: Medical devices & treatments 5.18 1.2783 Cerium oxide: coatings, paints & pigments 5.11 0.9564 Aluminum oxide: Electronics & optics 5.07 1.0865 Titanium dioxide: Coatings, paints & pigments 5.07 1.412

6 Zinc oxide: Medical devices & treatments 5.04 1.1057 Silicon dioxide: Automobile panels & displays 4.93 1.107

8 Nanoclays: Automobile plastics & polymers 4.89 1.286

9 Aluminum oxide: Coatings, paints & pigments 4.86 1.145

10 Silicon dioxide: Catalysts 4.81 1.388

Rank Nanomaterial application Mean SD11 Iron & iron oxides: Electronics & optics 4 71 1 01311 Iron & iron oxides: Electronics & optics 4.71 1.01312 Copper & copper oxides: Electronics &

optics4.71 1.182

13 Titanium dioxide: Cosmetics 4 68 1 51713 Titanium dioxide: Cosmetics 4.68 1.51714 Carbon nanotubes: Electronics & optics 4.64 1.33915 Nanoclays: Other composites 4.57 1.26016 Carbon nanotubes: Composites 4.41 1.36617 Iron & iron oxides: Coatings, paints &

pigments4.29 1.243

18 Copper & copper oxides: Coatings, paints & pigments

4.18 1.278

19 Silver: Coatings, paints & pigments 4.07 1.35920 Silver: Cosmetics & sunscreens 3.70 1.636

1. Experts may not be able to predict public concerned about nanoparticle risk profiles or may underestimate the capability of nanoparticle risk profiles or may underestimate the capability of publics to understand the risk profile of a nanoparticle or nanomaterial.

There is a phenomenon called EPoPP (expert perception of public There is a phenomenon called EPoPP (expert perception of public perception) confounding expert predictions of publicly perceived/understood risk profiles of nanoparticles and nanomaterials.

2. The regulation hypothesis may not be true. RH = experts assess k f l d ff l b h h b d drisk profiles differently because they have a better understanding

of the regulatory regimen governing a nanoparticle or nanomaterial.Th d b di ibl l i h 3. There does not seem to be any discernible algorithm experts use in determining the longitudinal risk profile of a nanoparticle or nanomaterial (today, 10 & 25 years)

PUBLICS VIEWS

DATA SET 2

1. Food additives. (4.52).2. Pesticides, herbicides & fertilizers. (4.46).3 Drugs (4 22)3. Drugs. (4.22).4. Community waste water treatment. (4.16).5. Food packaging. (4.16).p g g ( )6. Cleaning products. (4.10).7. Explosives. (4.05).

T d b b d t (4 04)8. Toys and baby products. (4.04)9. Water filters. (3.90).10. Paints and inks. (3.75).( )

DATA SET 3

PUBLIC VIEW BY EXPERTSPUBLIC VIEW BY EXPERTS1. Cosmetics. (3.06).2. Food additives. (3.67).2. Food additives. (3.67).3. Sunscreens. (4.22).4. Anything to do with carbon nanotubes. (4.65).

b ( )5. Nanobots. (6.0852).6. Anti-microbial toys and baby products. (6.56).7 Anti-microbial clothing (7 00)7. Anti microbial clothing. (7.00).8. Food packaging. (7.06).9. Pesticides and herbicides. (8.23).10. Medicine. (8.50).

1. STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT EQUAL.

1. Public is generally disinterested (70%). g y ( )Public is overwhelmingly disinterested in science and technology policy (90%).

2 P h bli f i 2. Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive. positive.

3. Engagement is not for everyone. Self-selection. Embrace the fact you will never succeed totally.

PERCEIVED RISKS OF NANO:AWARE VS UNAWARE RESPONDENTSAWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS

HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS?

Hart, CNS - NTFs

PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF NANO:AWARE VS UNAWARE RESPONDENTSAWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS

HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS?

2. ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES.

1. Audiences process frames through their own 1. Audiences process frames through their own perceptual filters, i.e., audiences use religious beliefs, moral schema, etc.

2. Perceptions are just that – the role of opinion – attitude – perception – behavior.

3. Determine your audience (the 7-10 percent solution) and why: duty, funding (EPOPP),

i b d iprotestation, boycotts, and consumerism.

NISE AUDIENCES

SCIENCE TELEVISION

EliteEliteAudiences

com

es

MassAudiencesPo

sitive

Outc

Low HighMessage Exposure

3. THE PUBLIC IS NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE.

1. Defining the public, publics…. 2. A day in the life of the public. Empathize

with the day-to-day concerns of the public. Th bli i d b t th The public is concerned about the economy, their jobs, and their families. The public is very concerned about their deaths very concerned about their deaths.

3. Understand the “Big Sort” & digital communication.communication.

The American landscape is undergoing a “big sort” with the general public forming sort with the general public forming communities of interest and opinions in regionally discrete areas. This effect is likely g y yto be amplified as opinion nuclei become more extreme and attract more like-minded

( h l d )citizens (Bishop, 2008; Florida, 2008).

TV and Internet News Consumption

80

70

50

60

ach

med

ium

40

mp

tion

fro

m e

a

TV 1998TV 2008WWW 1998WWW 2008

20

30

% c

onsu

m

10

018-24 25-29 30-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Age Range

4. THE MORALITY ISSUE

70“Which of the following best describes your views about nanotechnology?”

“strongly” or “somewhat” agreeScheufele et al, 2009The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

50

60 strongly or somewhat agreethat nano is morally acceptable“ t l ” “ h t”

The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

30

40 “strongly” or “somewhat”disagree that nano is morally acceptable

10

20

The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

0“I approve of nanotechnologyas long as the usual levels ofgo ernment reg lation are in

“I approve of nanotechnology If it is more tightly regulated ”

“I do not approve ofnanotechnology except under very

“I do not approve ofnanotechnology under an circ mstances ”government regulation are in

place.”regulated. except under very

special circumstances.” any circumstances.”

Communication Risk to the Public5. FRAMES AND COUNTER-FRAMES

1. Frames are not informational; they are 1. Frames are not informational; they are evaluative. Franken-food. Bailout. Global warming.

2. Frames help people make sense of complicated information, esp. scientific and t h l i l technological ones.

3. Reframing. St t d l ti Next 3 slides - Dietram Scheufele Structured analytics. Movement theory.

Next 3 slides Dietram Scheufele

FRANKENFOOD

COMMUNICATING RISK (MEDICINE)

NB: Rehabilitation.

COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLIC

NB: Risk (alert) fatigue researchNB: Risk (alert) fatigue research

Public unconcerned about nanoparticles compared to other risksother risks.Ranked 19/24.

JNR’11JNR’11

STS IMPACT MAPPING

Map the societal variables against a test case.Map the societal variables against a test case. Justice: risk parity. Employment levels.p y Area/national gross product. Economic competitiveness. Wealth accumulation (rich-poor gap). Humanitarian needs.

S i lt l di ti Sociocultural disruptions. Quality of life.

AB

Theory of Planned BehaviorB ~ I ∑ A (w ) + SN(w ) + PBC(w )B ~ I ∑ AB(w1) + SN(w2) + PBC(w3)

Ajzen proposed to explain (B) behavior and (I) intention as a function of (AB) attitudes and beliefs toward the behavior, (SN) subjective norms pertaining to the behavior and (PBC) perceived subjective norms pertaining to the behavior, and (PBC) perceived behavioral control.

• AB is one’s attitude toward the behavior and that attitudes is the sum of belief strength (bi) and belief evaluation (ei). g ( i) ( i)

• SN is the NBi salience of norm to others; MCi as one's motivation to comply;

• PBC is ci as the likelihood of a given control factor occurring; and pi as the power of the control factor to inhibit or facilitate behavior.

• These variables are weighted. S Fi hb i & Aj• See Fishbein & Ajzan.

• Can axiologies be quantized systems? Yes, but….systems? Yes, but….

• Should axiologies be quantized systems? Maybe

Relying on

q y ynot, but….

• Building algorithms to i i• Relying on

experts… ??? Experts needs

examine competing hypotheses open points of entry.• Experts needs

to dialogue on societal

entry.

on societal issues with the public.the public.

COM GES LAS & CRDMCOM, GES, LAS & CRDM dmberube@ncsu.com

Hunt Library, Centennial Campus, NCSU