PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS – INTEREST, ATTENTION…

David M. BerubeProfessor of Science Communication, STS, and CRDM (Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media), NCSU

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

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

National Chair Society for Risk Analysis Risk Communication Specialty.

PI: NSF NIRT #0809470 – Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement, 2007-2011…

Nan

ote

chn

olo

gy

Inte

gra

tio

n F

oru

m 2

010

©

Ber

ub

e

Mar

ch 2

3,

2010

– R

alei

gh

, N

C

http://pcost.org

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.

REVIEW

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIESCANADA AND EUROPE (GERMANY)

2004: UK-BMRB2004: DE-Komm-

passion2005: CAN-Eisendel2007: BfR

IRGC, 2009

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

2004: Cobb/ Macoubrie

2005a: Einsiedel2005b: Macoubrie2006: Hart2007: Kahan

IRGC, 2009

• 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)

RISK SALIENCE EFFECT

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

“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

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”.

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

Nan

ote

chn

olo

gy

Inte

gra

tio

n F

oru

m 2

010

©

Ber

ub

e

Mar

ch 2

3,

2010

– R

alei

gh

, N

C

COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLICAND THE MEDIA

This work was supported in part by grants 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 grad. students).

THANKSdmberube@ncsu.edu