NANOTOXICOLOGY & PUBLIC PERCEPTION

David M. BerubeProfessor of Science Communication, STS, and CRDM (Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media), North Carolina State University

Director: NCSU Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCOST) Project/Center/Institute.

CEO, Center for Converging Technologies, LLC – social media consultancy (trade assns and food industry).

PI: NSF NIRT #0809470 – Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement, 2007-2011 (3 pending).

http://pcost.org

2ND i

CE

INT

Co

nfe

ren

ce

2010

©

Ber

ub

e

May

11-

12,

201

0 –

UC

LA

, L

os

An

gel

es,

CA

RECENT/FORTHCOMING WORKS

• Written extensively in the rhetoric of emerging technologies, esp. nanotechnology (including NanoHype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. NY: Prometheus Books. 2006).

• Berube et al. Authored the White Paper on Risk Communication in the 21st Century for NNCO, NNI.

• Berube et al. completed two surveys: expert Delphi on nanoparticle safety and public Dillman survey on nanoparticle risk.

Topless Humans Organized for Natural Genetics

COPE-ing:

• Consume.*

• Outreach.

• Participate.

• Engage.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

ENGAGEMENT ISSUES

CONSUME

PARTICIPATE

ENGAGE

OUTREACH

1. Cultural worldview theories (see Kahan et al). Ideological associations between perceptions on safety and who and how to regulate (new data).

2. Religiosity theories, see Scheufele et al. Beliefs linked to perceptions (new data). Relinked it to socio-economic (new data).

3. Flattened interest, see Kahan, Scheufele, Satterfield, and Berube.

4. Familiarity hypothesis – linking perception to familiarity; deficit theory revisited.

5. Socio-economic hypothesis – work out of PCOST.

REVIEW

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE (DYNAMICS)ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES USA (3 yr span)

2004: Cobb/ Macoubrie

2005a: Einsiedel2005b: Macoubrie2006: Hart2007: Kahan

IRGC, 2009

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIESCANADA AND EUROPE (GERMANY)

2004: UK-BMRB2004: DE-Komm-

passion2005: CAN-Eisendel2007: BfR

IRGC, 2009

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE = INTEREST

1. From 2004 to 2007 public who heard little or nothing decreased from 84 to 81 percent, people who heard some or a lot increased from 16 to 19 percent = ?

2. Over 3 years, no significant impact from media exposure. 3% within error percentage.

• Public interest in science/tech policy.– Traditionally low (7-10%). Likely to be case/region

specific.– Competing interests (unemployment, economy,

wars….)

• Methodologies.– Critical case studies- hold strategic importance to

issues. – Experimental design (Kahan).

MOVE TO CRITICAL CASE STUDIES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

R > B B > R R = B Unsure

Hart 06

Hart 07

Hart 08

Unaided Evaluation - General

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES(HART 06-08)

Dillman National Public Survey(w U South Carolina, N=307)

– Impressions of nano and synthetic bio (non-framed),

– General risk levels (Slovic),– Concerns of nanoparticle

risks,– Perceptions of expert ratings

of risk,– Sources and use of various

media for risk info• Trust • Social media sources,

– Demographics ***• Religion• Ideology.

BERUBE et al. NEW DATA (2009)

Expert Delphi Study

(NCSU)

Expert Elicitation Nanoparticle toxicity, Potentially

problematic uses, Potentially

problematic applications,

Estimations of public perceptions of risk.

UNPRIMED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA

Public perceptions of nano

blank or "no idea"=47%

size= 38%

electronics= 8%

fictive= 4%

medicine= 3%

“What comes to mind when you hear the word “nanotechnology”?

• “Very very small subject matter- beyond microscopic.”• “Cutting edge research and technology that has made products smaller, faster, lighter, and stronger.”• “I actually don’t have the slightest idea, but I’m going to take a guess and say that it would be the smallest pieces of technological machines that can be made.”

KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATAEXPERT – HYPOTHETICAL EXPERT VIEW OF PUBLIC

EXPERTS: which current and predictably future products involving the applications of nanoparticles are potentially or actually problematic to EHS?

REGULATION HYPOTHESIS

Rank Experts: Top 5 applications

1 Cosmetics

2 Fuel additives

3 Anti-microbial clothing

4 Toys and baby products

5 Pesticides

PUBLIC: If experts were asked which potential or actual uses of nanoparticles most concerned the public, how do you think they would rate the public’s concerns?

Rank Public: Top 5 Applications

1 Medicine

2 Pesticides

3 Food Additives

4 Anti-microbial treatments

5 Food Packaging

EXPERTS: What applications or products do you assume the public believes is potentially or actually problematic (using ordinal rankings)?

KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATAEXPERT HYPOTHETICAL PUBLIC - ACTUAL PUBLIC

Rank Top 5 Applications

1 Cosmetics

2 Food additives

3 Sunscreens

4 All CNTs

5 Nanobots

Rank Top 5 Applications

1 Food additives

2 Pesticides

3 Drugs

4 Food packaging

5 Water treatment

PUBLIC: how concerned are you about risk to health and safety of the following potential or actual uses of nanoparticles as a component of each of the following (on a 7-item scale).

FOOD

TV and Internet News Consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

18-24 25-29 30-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Age Range

% c

on

su

mp

tion

fro

m e

ach

med

ium

TV 1998

TV 2008

WWW 1998

WWW 2008

TV and Internet News ConsumptionPew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2008

How often do you use the following media sources FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as once a day or more)?

Rank Media sources

1 Television (59%)

2 Internet (44%)

3 Radio

4 Newspapers

Rank Top Web 2.0 internet sources

1 News accumulators (27%)

2 Personal accumulators (21%)

3 Health Blogs

4 Social networking sites

5 Wikis

Which internet sources do you use FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as one a week or more)?

HEALTH AND SAFETY SOURCES INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA (Web 2.0)

• 52.8% - SLIGHT to NO risk.

• 74.6% - MODERATE to NO risk.

• Only 13.0% - HIGH health risk (only higher than X-Rays, cell phones, transfusions, and air travel), and less risky than storms and floods.

• Top 3 – street drugs, cigarette smoking, and AIDS.

• Weighted Ranking - 18/24 risks.

• Behind: stress, motor vehicle accidents, cloning, sun tanning, pesticide residues on foods, coal and oil burning plants, radon…

HEALTH AND SAFETYCOMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF RISKS

Slovic 1994/Berube 2009

NANOPARTICLE EHS RISKS BY DEMOGRAPHICS

• ANOVA– Income and education are

the primary independent variables that demonstrate significant group differences.

– Income: F(5, 284)=5.074, p<.001

– Education: F(6, 299)=4.998, p<.001

EDUCATION AND INCOME DEMOGRAPHICS AGAINSTS NANOPARTICLE EHS RISKS

HEALTH AND SAFETYPUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES AND TRUST

PUBLIC: Which sources are you most likely to turn to FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as probably would or more)?

Rank Top 5 EHS sources for info about risks

1 Doctors and health

professionals (73%)

2 University researchers (41%)

3 Family members

4 Friends and acquaintances

5 Industrial researchers

1. “Religious leaders” 2nd to last ahead of “Elected representatives”.

2. “Industrial scientists” were deemed more trustworthy than “NGOs”.

NANOPARTICLE EHS RISKS BY RELIGIOSITY DEMOGRAPHICS

• ANOVA– Religiosity measures demonstrate

insignificant group differences:– Attend religious services: F (7,

298)=.77, p=.663– Consider yourself religious: F (3,

299)=2.12, p=.098– Religion guides daily decision

making: F (6, 295)=.862, p=.523– Differences in religiosity levels are

only significant for self reports of religiosity affecting views of science and technology issues: F (3, 298)=3.053, p<.05

Attend religious services: F (7, 298)=.77, p=.663

ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICE

• F (3, 299)=2.12, p=.098

CONSIDER YOURSELF RELIGIOUS

• F (6, 295)=.862, p=.523

RELIGION AND DECISION MAKING

• F (3, 298)=3.053, p<.05

RELIGIOSITY

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

• Ecotoxicology and public perception – nearly a half entire generation of environmental neglect.

• Human toxicology and ecotoxicology communication – similarities and contrasts.

• Models of coping – new media challenges– SARF vs. new media.– town meeting vs. virtual meetings.

NANOTOXICOLOGY & PUBLIC PERCEPTION

This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation, NSF 0809470, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement.

NCSU, U Wisconsin, U Minnesota, U South Carolina, & Rice U. (6-8 grad and doctoral students).

THANKSdmberube@ncsu.edu 2

ND I

CE

INT

Co

nfe

ren

ce

2010

©

Ber

ub

e

May

11-

12,

201

0 –

UC

LA

, L

os

An

gel

es,

CA