vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent u.s. nanotechnology risk perceptions

Risk Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 11, 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x

Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S.Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions

Joseph Conti,1,∗ Terre Satterfield,2 and Barbara Herr Harthorn3

As an emerging domain of risk research, nanotechnologies engender novel research ques-tions, including how new technologies are encountered given different framing and contex-tual detail. Using data from a recent U.S. national survey of perceived risks (N = 1,100), riskversus benefit framings and the specific social positions from which people encounter or per-ceive new technologies are explored. Results indicate that vulnerability and attitudes towardenvironmental justice significantly influenced risk perceptions of nanotechnology as a broadclass, while controlling for demographic and affective factors. Comparative analyses of differ-ent examples of nanotechnology applications demonstrated heightened ambivalence acrossacceptability when risk versus benefit information was provided with application descriptions(described in short vignettes as compared to the general category “nanotechnology,” absentof risk or benefit information). The acceptability of these nano-specific vignettes varied sig-nificantly in only some cases given indexes of vulnerability and attitudes toward environ-mental justice. However, experimental narrative analyses, using longer, more comprehensivedescriptive passages, show how assessments of risks and benefits are tied to the systematicallymanipulated psychometric qualities of the application (its invasiveness and controllability),risk messaging from scientists, and the social implications of the technology with regard tojustice. The article concludes with discussion of these findings for risk perception researchand public policy related to nanotechnology and possibly other emerging technologies.

KEY WORDS: Justice; nanotechnology risk and benefit perceptions; narrative information framing;vulnerability

1. INTRODUCTION

Nanotechnologies are manufactured materials(e.g., quantum dots, carbon nanotubes) and enablingplatforms built at the nanoscale. They promise manynovel applications such as molecular-level targeteddrug delivery systems, improved sensors and envi-

1Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI,USA.

2Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, Univer-sity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

3NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society, University of Cali-fornia, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.

∗Address correspondence to Joseph Conti, Department ofSociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA;[email protected].

ronmental cleanup technologies, and lighter moreefficient materials. However, their small size andunique properties such as surface reactivity meanthat they may carry substantial health risks.(1−6)

Given the newness of nanotechnologies, their in-triguing novel capacities, and yet some potential forharm, social scientists have begun investigating howdifferent publics might perceive these technologies,absent widespread familiarity and well-establishedtoxicological understanding. The question generallyposed by those interested in perceived risk is: Howmight current growth in nanotechnology researchand development be viewed by different publics andwill the products and capacities derived from nano-materials be met with optimism or aversion? In

1734 0272-4332/11/0100-1734$22.00/1 C© 2011 Society for Risk Analysis

Vulnerability, Justice, Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions 1735

particular, will nanotechnologies be the subject ofcontroversy, as has been the case with some othernew technologies, such as genetically modified organ-isms or cloning research? Or, will benefit apprecia-tion prevail over risk aversion and, for either, why?

This article explores these possibilities by exam-ining how information about these new technologiesis encountered and perceived given variations in theattributes of information, and given the attitudes andsocial experience of perceivers (whether they see theworld as just, or not; and whether they experiencethemselves as vulnerable in the world, or not). Us-ing data from a recent national risk perception sur-vey of American adults, we demonstrate that whenthe distribution of risks and benefits from nanotech-nologies is perceived as unfair, concomitant concernsfor social justice lead to heightened perception of thenanotechnologies as risky. Similarly, we show thatexperiences of vulnerability amplify perceptions ofrisk associated with nanotechnologies. Further, weexplore variation in risk perception between appli-cation domains (energy, food, and medicine).

Because many remain unfamiliar with this newand potentially ubiquitous class of technologies,exploring such questions requires the use of tutorialsand more detailed information frames. The accept-ability of risks and benefits is examined across onequestion and two experiments: first, we examineattitudes toward nanotechnology generally and inthe absence of any experimental manipulations; sec-ond, we examine the same question following shortdescriptive vignettes; third, we use longer narrativepassages (the designs of each are described below).Together these experiments indicate the close link ofacceptability and risk-benefit judgments to the socialimplications of the technology; to the equity of theiravailability to less affluent citizens; as well as thetechnologies’ perceived bodily invasiveness and (toa lesser degree) scientifically reported uncertainty asto the behavioral properties of the materials. Recog-nizing the embeddedness of technological innovationin social contexts, including experiences of vulner-ability and normative evaluations related to socialjustice, extends the conventional foci of risk percep-tion research and demonstrates how justice deservesgreater attention as a factor in perceptions of risk.

To date, survey research on public perceptions ofnanotechnology has confirmed relatively low levelsof familiarity with the technology. A meta-analysis of22 surveys conducted in the United States, Canada,Europe, and Japan between 2002 and 2009 foundthat on average over 51% of survey respondents re-

ported knowing “nothing at all” about nanotechnol-ogy. Approximately 20% reported knowing “someor a lot.”(7) Overall, American and European publicsare optimistic about nanotechnology, with approxi-mately three times as many people reporting that thebenefits will outweigh the risks than the reverse. Atthe same time, respondents are also hesitant to judgethe riskiness or acceptability of nanotechnologies.Approximately 44% of pooled respondents acrossnations indicated that they were “not sure” aboutthe relative risks and benefits, demonstrating a strik-ing “judgment conservatism” and possibly indicatingmalleability of thought as yet with regard to percep-tions of risks and benefits of nanotechnologies.(7,8)

These findings demonstrate the unique opportuni-ties(9) offered risk researchers to better understandhow new technologies are encountered and madesense of given different information and positions ofperceivers.

Most attempts to identify the factors driving riskperceptions of nanotechnology have attended to thedemographic characteristics of perceivers, levels offamiliarity with these technologies, and trust in theirregulation.(7) Female gender and nonwhite race arepredictive of increased perceived risk.(10) Investiga-tion of attitudinal dispositions has focused largely onattitudes about trust in science and identification withpolitical parties. Research on religiosity and the in-fluence of sociopolitical worldviews or environmen-tal values and how they affect risk perceptions hasbeen limited, but early findings suggest this as an im-portant target for research on emerging perceptionsof nanotechnologies.(11)

For instance, Vandermoere et al.,(12) in theirFrench study, called for greater attention to “politi-cal” research on public risk perceptions of nanotech-nology, and in particular, greater attention to the“(re)organisation [sic] of the relations between sci-ence, technology, and nature” (p. 10). This includes afocus on the influence of religious and moral valueson the desirability of nanotechnology. While Schue-fele and colleagues(11) found religiosity to be an im-portant predictor of nanotechnology risk perceptionsin the United States and Europe, Vandermoere etal.(13) did not in the case of Germany, though theydid find it to be a predictor of having an opinion onnanotechnology. Brossard et al.(14) showed that, inthe United States, religiosity mediates knowledge ofnano and that knowledge is more strongly associatedwith acceptance of nano for the nonreligious.

Gaskell et al.(15) identified a techno-optimism,particularly in the United States, that is associated

1736 Conti, Satterfield, and Harthorn

with perception of benefits of nanotechnology, whilecontrolling for measures of environmental values.Kahan et al.(10,16) demonstrated how shared sociopo-litical worldviews (aka cultural cognitions) in gen-eral and in reference to key American political topicssuch as climate change and same-sex marriage helpshape the social meanings associated with new tech-nologies or other potentially risky activities, and un-derlie the cognitive processes by which individualsencounter and make sense of new information.(16)

Thus we might expect, and others have found, thatcultural cognition is a good indicator of just how riskperceptions related to nanotechnology might unfold.Specifically, while most people rely on cultural cog-nition to assess new information, those with unin-formed views about nanotechnologies tend to morefully “use” their cultural and political worldviews asheuristics for making sense of and evaluating thisnew class of technologies and any risks they may en-gender. We build on these findings by asking whetherattitudes about justice similarly operate as value-driven cognitions informing risks perceptions of nan-otechnologies.

While research to date has revealed that novelmoral, demographic, and political worldviews, as wellas affect,(10,17) underpin high versus low perceivedrisk, it has also tended to treat “nanotechnology”as a discrete, singular risk object or class of risk.Yet, scholars examining specific nano-applicationshave found a greater diversity of risk perceptionsthan research on “nanotechnology” alone antici-pated.(12,18,19) In particular, public risk perceptionsof nanotechnology enhancements of food and foodpackaging have been found to be less than opti-mistic. For instance, studies on risk perceptions ofnano-related applications in food and food packag-ing in Switzerland found that people expressed re-luctance to purchase food products that incorporatednanotechnology, but more willingness to buy foodpackaging that did.(20,21) Similarly, Vandermoere andcolleagues(12) demonstrated that most people in theirFrench study were either skeptical about the risksand benefits of nanofood applications or pessimistic,viewing the risks of nanotechnology applications infood and food packaging as greater than the ben-efits. Pidgeon et al.(22) also identified differences inU.S. and U.K. publics in the perceived risks andbenefits of nanotechnologies for specific applica-tion domains. Energy applications were viewed morepositively than applications in health or human en-hancement, but across all of them, concerns aboutthe equity of distribution of benefits and risks across

society were more prominent than concerns for tech-nological features of the risk objects.

While affirming the importance of these earlyfindings, a more precise rendering of how nanotech-nologies will be confronted by those occupyingdifferent social positions and in response to diversedescriptors remains comparatively absent. Buildingon earlier findings, we focus on nanotechnology ap-plications in the domains of food, health, and energy;we expect the U.S. public to have different responsesto them. In particular, we expect the public to bepositive toward energy applications but skeptical oreven opposed to applications in the domain of food.Moreover, we situate these applications in greatercontextual detail that more closely approximateshow people may encounter information about nan-otechnologies, and whether or not they regard them-selves as well positioned to realize their benefits.

Many social studies of risk recognize that the dis-tribution of new technologies and any hazards theymay engender necessitates questions of social or en-vironmental justice. For instance, Burningham andThrush(23) argue that concerns about the quality ofthe environment are caught up in concerns about lo-cal life and the effectiveness of public management ofthe environment. By extension, the meanings associ-ated with technologies can be understood to be per-ceived not just as a function of their attributes (thetechnology is safe or not, invasive or not, charismaticor not, new, or bright in color, and so on), but also asa function of how they are nested in social contexts,including attributions of who in particular will faceany risks introduced by the new technology and whowill garner its benefits. In tracking risk perceptionsabout unfamiliar risk objects, individuals might beexpected to weigh the implications of new technolo-gies for fairness and justice,(24) an estimation thatmight extend to their judgments of how the risks andbenefits of that object may be distributed across andbetween social groups as well as concerns for proce-dural fairness that governs that distribution.(25,26)

Justice and experiences of marginality havebeen closely examined by scholars of environmentalinjustice and racism, who have found that poor andminority communities tend to bear a disproportion-ate share of environmental hazards.(27−33) Whilethe environmental justice hypothesis—that minoritycommunities are more likely to be burdened withenvironmental hazards and other negative external-ities of industrialization—has been underresearchedin the domain of risk perception survey work, inone study experiences of vulnerability and attitudes


toward environmental justice are predictive ofperceived risk.(34) These factors were shown to bepartially explanatory of persistent demographicdifferences in risk perception, wherein a strong“[elite] white male effect,” or risk tolerance amongthis demographic group, is in part seen to be pro-duced by variables other than race and gender.(35)

Thus, awareness of and experience with how newtechnologies are taken up by social groups,(36)

including those historically marginalized, affect howthose technologies are understood. In this regard,nanotechnologies inspire questions about social life,including its inequalities. By this logic, perceptionsof nanotechnologies are likely to be entangled inassessments of fairness and justice, and thus weexpect environmental justice and vulnerability tobe predictive of risk perceptions. More specifically,we expect those affirming vulnerability to be moresensitive to risk information and thus more riskadverse in response to shorter (vignette) passages.Similarly, when the social conditions or the avail-ability or usability of new technologies is/are mademore salient, we expect concerns for justice to beassociated with heightened risk aversion.

In the remainder of the article, we examine thefollowing hypotheses:

(1) Affirmation of environmental justice and ex-periences of vulnerability will stand up aslogically consistent and useable constructs, as-sociated with heightened perceptions of nan-otechnology risks while controlling for knowndemographic predictors of risk; but will notoverride affect as predictors of risk judgments(given the predictive power of affect in earlierstudies).

(2) Judgments about environmental justice andexperiences of vulnerability will be associatedwith amplified risk perceptions in the contextof risk information but have only negligibleeffects when nanotechnology applications areframed as beneficial or safe.

(3) Justice and vulnerability will prevail againstknown psychometric variables (controllabil-ity, dread-like qualities, and whether or nottechnologies are understood by scientists),under conditions of detailed and systemati-cally manipulated information.

In investigating these hypotheses, we first assessthe role of justice and the related concept of vul-nerability through one test and two experiments uti-

lizing risk perception survey data. We describe theconstruction of scales for environmental justiceand vulnerability and then test them against twowell-known risk perception factors: affect (thepositive/negative valences assigned to objects andkey to rapid evaluation of information) and gen-der.(37) We then assess the sensitivity of vulner-ability and environmental justice to risk versussafety information provided in brief vignettes acrossenergy, environmental, and medical applications.Finally, we evaluate social justice against threewell-established predictors of risk perceptions in thecontext of extended narrative passages containingfour manipulated variables. The article concludeswith a discussion of the implications of these findingsfor risk research and the future of nanotechnologies.

2. DATA AND DESIGN

The data reported here were collected througha U.S. national telephone survey (N = 1,100) de-signed to assess public perceptions of nanotechnol-ogy. The survey was administered by telephone inthe fall of 2008. Significant effort was made to con-tact participants. Numbers were dialed a minimum ofseven times until either an interview was conductedor the potential respondent refused to participate.Every reasonable effort was made to encourage par-ticipation. Of those numbers that were deemed to beeligible to participate in the survey (residential num-bers only) the response rate was 51.9% and the re-fusal rate was 38.8%, based on actual contacts. Themean age was 57, with 57% women and 43% men.Eighty-two percent of participants were white, 7%black, and 3% Hispanic.4

As described, while most surveys about nan-otechnology to date have found that different U.S.publics view the benefits of nanotechnology asoutweighing the risks, the evidence also suggeststhat these views have not stabilized, and infor-mation provided is an important variable.(7,8,38−40)

4We relied on categories of race and ethnicity used by the U.S.Census. Random digit dialing produced response rates by genderand race/ethnicity that differ somewhat from the U.S. nationalprofile. The survey was conducted in English, which could par-tially explain the low participation rates by Hispanics. It is pos-sible that the differential response rates reflect a bias in favor oftechnology. We strove to avoid this by investing significant effortin contacting the randomly identified telephone numbers. Fur-ther, for potential participants, we described the survey as beingabout “how society is changing and how technology is involved”and did not mention nanotechnologies. Data are unweighted.


We tested this assertion in our research design viathree relevant question sets, which included (1) self-assessments of experiences of vulnerability and at-titudes about environmental justice tested againstother measures of risk perception; (2) short, pairedvignettes designed to pit risk and safety informationagainst one another to better understand the effectof each; and (3) the above noted narrative passages,each of which systematically manipulated four di-mensions of specific nano-enabled applications, in-cluding information on risk and safety from experts,the controllability of material once released, the bod-ily invasiveness of material, and the equity or not ofaccess to these new technologies by the rich or poor.

3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

3.1. Vulnerability and Environmental Justice Scales

The survey items used to elicit attitudes towardvulnerability and environmental justice were drawnfrom Satterfield et al.,(34) who demonstrated that theyare reliable proxies for these concepts. The itemsused in creating the environmental justice scale wereas follows:

(1) I think hazardous facilities are more commonin minority communities.

(2) Minority communities lack the political cloutto stop hazardous facilities from being locatednear them.

(3) The government should restrict the placing ofhazardous facilities in minority communities.

Respondents were asked to report on a four-point scale how strongly they agreed or disagreedwith those statements. The reliability is acceptable(Cronbach alpha = 0.66). Two-thirds of survey par-ticipants either agreed or strongly agreed with the en-vironmental justice hypothesis. Of those who agreed,75% were age 45 or older, nearly 58% had achieved apostsecondary degree, and 65% earned $75K or lessper year. By a ratio of almost 2 to 1, more womenagreed with the environmental justice claims thanmen (X2 (df ) = 27.49 (1), p = 0.000).5

Theoretically, environmental justice is primarilyan assessment of the distribution of environmentalhazards within society.6 It also suggests a greater per-

5This finding was derived from a chi-square test of the environ-mental justice scale collapsed into a two-category variable for“agree” or “disagree.”

6This can be contrasted with measures for attitudes about the re-lationship between society and nature. As such, environmental

ceived vulnerability to hazards. We thus used threeitems developed and tested in earlier studies(34) toelicit experiences of vulnerability though we did notask, specifically, about vulnerability to environmen-tal injustices:7

(1) I often feel discriminated against.(2) I have very little control over risks to my

health.(3) How would you rate the quality of medical

care that is available to you and your family?

As with attitudes about environmental justice,respondents were asked to report on a four-pointscale how strongly they agreed or disagreed withthese statements. For item three only, the responsecategories ranged from poor to excellent.8 The re-liability of this scale is low (Cronbach alpha =0.56), but acceptable and based on familiar constructstested in other contexts. It is a likely contributor tolower power in tests reported in the next section.Vulnerability combines aspects of health inequal-ity, particularly a lack of control over one’s healthand inadequate medical care, with experiences ofdiscrimination.9

Those that reported vulnerability were dispro-portionately of lower income (70%, <$50K) andwithout a college degree (63%). While most in oursample who were reporting vulnerability were white(74%), nearly 25% of nonwhite men and women re-ported vulnerability compared to between 13 and15% of white men and women.

Given the newness of nanotechnology and its ex-pected importance in the future, it is worth consid-ering the influence of vulnerability and environmen-tal justice in the context of other well-establishedpredictors of risk perceptions, including affect andthe white male effect.(35,41) Affect is the positiveor negative valence assigned to objects and key to

justice is distinct from the human-interdepedence scale used byVandemoere et al.(12) and the environmental values items usedby Gaskell et al.(15)

7We recognize this as a possible oversight and will seek to rectifythis omission in future studies.

8In creating the vulnerability scale, the response categories foritem three “poor,” “fair,” “good,” or “excellent” were treatedas equivalent to the response categories of the other items suchthat, for instance, “poor” equals “strongly agree” on statementasserting the experience of vulnerability and “excellent” equals“strongly disagree.”

9Item three potentially conflates two distinct factors produc-ing health inequality: access to and quality of health care, butnonetheless emphasizes the [in]adequacy of care overall as an ex-pression of health vulnerability.(60)


rapid evaluation of their risks or benefits. Gender isa known predictor of risk perception, as expressedby the white male effect: the finding that politi-cally conservative, authoritarian, high-income earn-ing, and highly educated white males are very risktolerant, relative to all others. The vulnerability andenvironmental justice scales are associated with dis-tinctive demographic characteristics, correlating withrace and gender, that suggest a relation with thewhite male effect. For instance, reports of experi-ences of vulnerability are negatively associated withwhite respondents (rho = −0.01, p = 0.000; nonwhitemales: rho = 0.09, p = 0.005; nonwhite females: rho =0.15, p = 0.000). Reports of environmental justiceare negatively associated with male (rho = −0.19,p = 0.000), particularly white males (rho = −0.17,p = 0.000; nonwhite males, p = n.s.). Among females,white females are positively associated with environ-mental justice (rho = 0.135, p = 0.000) as are non-white females (rho = 0.07, p = 0.03). While thereis significant overlap between experiences of vulner-ability and environmental justice with women andpeople of color, the relationship is not perfect. Mostwhite women (N = 399; 85%), nonwhite women(N = 70; 75%), and nonwhite men (N = 53; 75%)report experiences of vulnerability. Where a smallminority of white males report experiences of vulner-ability (N = 45; 13%), a slight majority affirm envi-ronmental justice (N = 188; 55%) as do majoritiesof white women (N = 324; 70%), nonwhite women(N = 71; 76%), and nonwhite men (N = 37; 54%).As with earlier findings,(34) a number of white menreport experiences of vulnerability and endorse theenvironmental justice items. The question is whethervulnerability and environmental justice can bereduced to their demographic characteristics. Or, inother words, are vulnerability and environmental jus-tice analogs for the white male effect or even affect?

The ordered logistic regression results presentedin Table I confirm how experiences with vulnerabilityand attitudes about environmental justice inform riskperceptions, while controlling for standard measuressuch as race, gender, and affect.10 In this test, an as-sessment of the risks and benefits of nanotechnologyserved as the dependent variable. The independentvariables included binary indicators for race (whitevs. nonwhite) and gender (male vs. female), an affec-

10Other standard demographic variables, including income, age,and education, were evaluated but ultimately omitted due to non-significance of each in the final saturated model.

Table I. Influences on Nanotechnology Benefits to Risk Ratio

I II III

White 0.59∗∗∗ 0.38∗ 0.43(0.16) (0.17) (0.18)

Male 0.86∗∗∗ 0.81∗∗∗ 0.55∗∗∗(0.13) (0.14) (0.15)

Vulnerability −0.21∗∗∗ −0.14∗∗∗(0.04) (0.04)

Environmental Justice −0.09∗ −0.08∗Affect 1.24∗∗∗

(1.00)Pseudo R2 (Nagelkerke) 0.07 0.13 0.33Model X2 000 000 000−2LL 43.04 846.40 1044.72

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. Vulnerability and en-vironmental justice are reverse coded; a high number indicatesstrong agreement.Significant at ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.

tive rating of nanotechnology, and the two scales forvulnerability and environmental justice.

The goal of the modeling exercise is to assess theextent to which these items help explain risk percep-tions of nanotechnology vis-a-vis these other well-known predictors of risk perceptions. We elicitedoverall risk perceptions using the following scale: 1(the risks of nanotechnology will outweigh its ben-efits); 2 (. . . be about the same); 3 (the benefits . . .

will outweigh its risks), whereas we elicited affectiveresponses to nanotechnology by asking “how wouldyou say nanotechnology made you feel?” where thescale consisted of 1 (very bad); 2 (bad); 3 (neithergood nor bad); 4 (good); 5 (very good). Responseson both scales were elicited immediately after a tuto-rial that read:

Nanotechnology involves human made materials or de-vices that are extremely small, for instance 10,000 timessmaller than a fine grain of sand. Because they’re sosmall, they can have unique physical, chemical, electri-cal or other properties. This may produce new healthor environmental risks because these nanomaterials canget into the human body through breathing, skin con-tact, or eating or they may end up in the environmentwith unexpected or unknown long-term effects. They’rebeing developed because they may provide new waysto treat disease, clean up pollution, improve food, andprovide cheaper energy.

Consistent with the white male effect, whiteand male participants perceived the benefits of nan-otechnology as outweighing the risks as compared towomen and nonwhites. Controlling for the effects ofgender and race, experiences of vulnerability and at-titudes toward environmental justice are negatively


associated with benefits outweighing the risks. Alsoconsistent with Satterfield et al.,(34) this demonstrateshow vulnerability and environmental justice do notfully account for the effects of race and gender andare also distinct from generalized affect, which issignificant and predictive of the perceptions of ben-efits outweighing the risks. Vulnerability and envi-ronmental justice constitute distinct factors affectingperceptions of the risks and benefits of nanotech-nologies, but, as expected, they do not eliminatethe power of affect in explaining initial reactions tonanotechnology.

3.2. Influence of Vulnerability and EnvironmentalJustice on Acceptability ofNanotechnology Applications

While most nanotechnology risk perceptionsurveys report strong benefit ratings, it is not entirelyclear the extent to which this is a function of early-stage technological optimism, or a framing effectderived from the fact that many surveys have eithernot provided information tutorials or describednanotechnologies in reference to their uses, whichare all beneficial to the extent that nano-applicationsare typically introduced and justified by their uses,for example, an energy-saving device.(22) To examinethis possibility, we designed an experiment to ma-nipulate the delivery of risk and safety informationabout different nanotechnology applications. Wealso sought to examine the influence of vulnerabilityand environmental justice as a factor that mightinfluence respondent sensitivity to this information.We expected that risk statements would generateratings of unacceptability and safety statementswould produce acceptability, but those with highrating on vulnerability and environmental justicewould be more sensitive to risk information.

Participants (four subsamples of approxi-mately N = 275) were asked to provide ratings ofacceptability for a range of specific nano-applications, each described in short vignetteform. All six vignettes began with a statement ofthe purpose of the technology and its benefits; threeof these were accompanied by clear safety mes-sages, and three were followed by counterpart riskmessages.11 Risk and safety messages were drawn

11This section of the survey instrument included 16 items whosesubject matter invoked several domains, such as health or en-ergy. To better control for possible effects of domain we haverestricted the test to vignettes referencing health and the envi-ronment.

from concurrent deliberation work.(22) For instance,safety messages included social safety in the form ofpromised benefits to the poor with informed consent;and scientific safety in the form of certainty of thematerials’ controllability; whereas risk messagesincluded the possibility of compromised privacyand examples of environmental harms. Respon-dents rated the acceptability of each vignette on afour-point scale where 1 equals “very acceptable,” 2equals “acceptable,” 3 equals “unacceptable,” and 4equals “very unacceptable.”

Table II presents the results of an ordinal re-gression assessing the effects of environmental jus-tice and vulnerability on the acceptability ratings ofthe short vignettes. All significant effects are nega-tive, indicating that agreement with vulnerability andenvironmental justice items is associated with unac-ceptable ratings of the application vignettes. For theapplication vignettes with risk content, some sensi-tivity to risk messaging is evident, across those whoagree with the environmental justice and vulnera-bility statements, to the extent that one item (smallradio transmitters for medical diagnoses) generatedsignificant negative effects in the case of vulnerabil-ity, a second item (nanosilver bandages) in the caseof environmental justice, and the third item (pollu-tion sensors) in reference to both environmental jus-tice and vulnerability.

In the other three vignettes, which deliver in-formation about the safe use of nanotechnologies,the environmental justice scale was nonsignificant.Vulnerability is significant for two of three safety-oriented vignettes, indicating that those reportingvulnerability also rate nanotechnology applicationsas unacceptable even when described as safe, such asin the case of nanorobots for environmental remedi-ation and remote medical diagnostics for the poor.

These findings are largely consistent with oursecond hypothesis, namely: agreement with en-vironmental justice positions and experiences ofvulnerability are associated with heightened sensi-tivity to risk information. The negative coefficientssuggest that those who report vulnerability and af-firm environmental justice display sensitivity towardrisk information and as a result tend to rate nan-otechnology applications described as risky as moreunacceptable. Not anticipated in our hypothesis,however, were the negative coefficients for vulnera-bility in two of three safety-oriented vignettes. Theseresults indicate that experiences of vulnerabilitycan generate negative judgments of nanotechnologyeven when framed entirely as beneficial and safe.


Tab

leII

.E

ffec

tofV

ulne

rabi

lity

and

Env

iron

men

talJ

usti

ceon

Nan

otec

hnol

ogy

Scen

ario

s

Ris

kC

orre

ctiv

eSa

fety

Cor

rect

ive

Nan

otec

hnol

ogy

sens

ors

can

beus

edto

dete

ctpo

lluta

nts

inso

ilan

dw

ater

.How

ever

,ex

pert

sw

orry

that

thes

eti

nyse

nsor

sw

illde

grad

eov

erti

me

beco

min

gto

xic

tofis

hor

hum

ans

who

use

ordr

ink

the

wat

er.

Tin

yna

nosi

lver

part

icle

sca

nbe

used

inba

ndag

esto

stop

infe

ctio

nsby

killi

ngba

cter

ia.B

utna

nosi

lver

isco

nsid

ered

aw

ater

pollu

tant

;ifi

ttur

nsup

inou

rri

vers

oroc

eans

,fis

h,an

dot

her

mar

ine

life

may

bew

idel

yha

rmed

.

Nan

otec

hnol

ogie

sar

eus

edto

crea

tesm

allr

adio

tran

smit

ters

that

can

send

med

ical

diag

nose

san

dre

cord

sfr

omre

mot

ear

eas

byIn

tern

etor

cell

phon

e.A

sth

ein

form

atio

nis

sent

,ho

wev

er,l

eaks

inpr

ivac

ym

aybe

unst

oppa

ble

orir

reve

rsib

le.

Tin

yin

stru

men

tskn

own

asna

noro

bots

can

beus

edto

repa

irda

mag

edce

llsan

dor

gans

inw

ater

bird

sda

mag

edby

oil

spill

s.T

his

new

tech

nolo

gyan

dho

wto

cont

roli

tis

now

wel

lun

ders

tood

bysc

ient

ists

.

Tin

yna

nopa

rtic

les

are

bein

gde

velo

ped

for

targ

eted

deliv

ery

ofm

edic

ine

atth

ece

llula

rle

vel,

apr

oces

sth

atm

eans

that

chem

othe

rapy

will

only

kill

dise

ased

cells

.Thi

sne

wte

chno

logy

will

beav

aila

ble

for

the

poor

orth

ose

wit

hlim

ited

orno

heal

thca

re.

Nan

otec

hnol

ogy

can

beus

edto

mak

ea

very

smal

ldev

ice

for

easy

use

and

med

ical

diag

nose

sin

rem

ote

area

sof

the

wor

ld.T

hey

are

bein

gte

sted

inpo

orco

untr

ies

atth

ere

ques

tof

peop

leth

ere

inar

eas

whe

refe

wm

edic

alse

rvic

esex

ist.

Vul

nera

bilit

y−0

.21∗

∗−0

.02

−0.2

4∗∗∗

−0.1

9∗∗

−0.0

8−0

.23∗

∗(0

.07)

(0.0

6)(0

.06)

(0.0

7)(0

.06)

(0.0

7)E

nvir

onm

enta

l−0

.21∗

∗−0

.24∗

∗∗−0

.003

0.03

0.03

−0.1

0Ju

stic

e(0

.07)

(0.0

6)(0

.06)

(0.0

7)(0

.06)

(0.0

7)P

seud

oR

20.

090.

070.

080.

030.

070.

06(N

agel

kerk

e)−2

LL

223.

4929

4.71

322.

8026

1.01

305.

3526

9.80

Mod

elX

2Si

g.0.

000

0.00

00.

000

0.03

0.48

0.02

∗ p<

0.05

;∗∗ p

≤0.

01;∗

∗∗p

≤0.

001.

Not

es:V

ulne

rabi

lity

and

Env

iron

men

talJ

usti

cear

ein

thei

ror

igin

alfo

rm;a

high

num

ber

indi

cate

sst

rong

disa

gree

men

t.St

anda

rder

rors

are

inpa

rent

hese

s.


Given the low reliability, and thus low power, ofthe scale for vulnerability, these results are likelyunderstated. This may also be affected by wordingvariability in the examples and messaging itself, aswe sought realistic and scientifically valid examplesacross domains at the expense of manipulations thatwere perfect mirrors of one another.

3.3. Narrative Scenarios

To further assess the influence of justice on theperception of nanotechnologies, we developed moreelaborated scenarios of nano-applications whereinthe effect of particular combinations of variablescould be inferred. In this case we used longer nar-rative passages because we sought an alternative tothe preponderance of short descriptions of nano-enabled products in the literature thus far, whichomit the “realism” of more complex descriptions ofnanotechnologies that people are likely to encounterin real-life contexts. Longer narratives were also se-lected as narrative communication has been shownto enhance the ability of people to comprehend com-plex information and consider multiple dimensionsof a problem.(42−45) Specifically, we embedded in nar-rative passages four binary variables expressed asstatements within each narrative. These variables in-cluded scientists’ risk judgments (R), controllability(C) of the technology, the potential for bodily inva-sion (I), and whether the nanotechnology applicationwas produced in a socially just (J) manner. The firstthree variables were selected because they are proxi-mate to known psychometric variables demonstratedto influence risk judgments,(46−48) and the fourthwas chosen as an expression of social justice values,which could then be compared to these other well-examined factors. Indeed, the primary goal of thisexperiment, in addition to contextualizing specificnano-applications, was to assess the influence of per-ceived social justice alongside familiar constructs as-sociated with risk perceptions. Given the significanceof vulnerability and environmental justice scales, weexpected that contextualized presentations of nano-applications would also elicit concerns for socialjustice in a way that may be less evident whennanotechnologies are considered as a class definedlargely by its charismatic potential for great benefits.

Each of the four variables has a positive andnegative form that was tested across three do-mains: nanofood additives (food), nanopharmaceu-ticals (medicine), and nanofuel additives (energy)(Table III; Appendix). For instance, the following

Table III. Positive and Negative Forms of Main Effects inExtended Vignette Experiment

Positive Valence Negative Valence

Benefit/NoRisk

Scientists are positiveabout the benefitsof these.

Scientists are worriedabout the health risksof this.

Bodily Inva-sion/NoInvasion

Even though thesematerials are small,they cannot beabsorbed into thebloodstreamthrough theintestines.

Because they are sosmall they may beabsorbed into thebloodstream throughthe intestines.

Control/NoControl

They are designed toexpel quicklythrough sweating orurination.

We may not be able tocontrol or retrievethese if this happens.

Social Jus-tice/SocialInjustice

Currently, theproduction ofnanofood isoccurring in bothpoor and well-offneighborhoods.

Currently, theproduction ofnanofood is onlyoccurring in poor andminorityneighborhoods.

narrative scenario about nanotechnology-enabledfood begins with a statement describing the appli-cation and the rationale for developing it (a benefitstatement):

Nanotechnology may be used in food to improve itstaste and nutritional value. (1) Scientists are positiveabout the benefits of this. (2) Because nanoparticles areso small, they may be absorbed into the bloodstreamthrough the intestines. (3) We may not be able to con-trol or retrieve these nanoparticles if this happens. (4)Currently, the production of nanofoods is occurring inboth poor and well-off neighborhoods. How acceptableis this on a scale between 1 and 7, where 1 is stronglysupport it, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly oppose it?

In this example, the first variable statement (sci-entists’ risk judgment) is positive. The second variablestatement (bodily invasion) is negative and so indi-cates that nanoparticles may invade the body. Thethird variable provides a negative statement aboutthe controllability of the nanomaterial. The final vari-able statement describes the location of production,in this case, it is equitably distributed (social justice).This example illustrates condition 4 for “Nanofood”in Table IV. Each variable statement appears 24times overall in the experiment.

An optimal “full” factorial model of four binaryvariables would have required 16 vignettes per do-main to capture all of the combinations of each of thevariables. To reduce the sample size needed to evalu-ate a full factorial model, we instead employed a 24−1


Table IV. Mean Support by Experimental Condition

Nanofood Nanopill Nanofuel

Condition Risk Control Bodily Invasion Social Justice N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD

1 – – – – 34 5.94 1.54 42 5.62 1.62 34 5.65 1.982 + – + – 42 5.14 1.95 47 4.30 1.74 39 4.82 1.903 + + – – 40 5.63 1.67 50 5.54 1.74 33 5.15 1.544 + – – + 42 5.48 1.77 40 4.40 1.96 44 4.98 1.855 – + + – 42 5.64 1.57 49 4.92 1.96 45 5.36 2.096 – – + + 51 4.88 1.61 46 4.04 1.87 42 4.55 1.587 – + – + 36 5.50 1.54 46 4.78 1.76 39 5.31 1.448 + + + + 44 5.07 1.86 44 3.45 1.76 43 3.21 1.91

N 331 364 319Overall 5.41 4.63 4.88

Notes: The fractional design employed eight conditions across three domains of nanoapplications.The alias structure is represented by the presence (+) or or absence (–) of each factor.

fractional, or half-factorial, design that reduced thenumber of variable combinations to eight conditionsper domain. This is a resolution IV design in whichthe defining relation I = RCIJ. As depicted in Ta-ble IV, the alias structure is RI = CJ, RC = IJ, andRJ = IC. This permits testing of main effects, whichwas the focus of this experiment, and we assumedthat higher order interactions are negligible.(49,50) Assuch, this design allowed for evaluation of the fourvariables, which are uncorrelated, without generat-ing unnecessary information on higher order com-binations, and thus permitting a smaller sample sizeadequate for the analysis. This design avoids prob-lems associated with direct questioning, given thefinding that study respondents do not necessarily usethe attributes in a decision scenario in the way theyself-report or think they have.(42,51)

Each participant received one scenario from oneapplication domain for a sample size of between 319and 364 per domain. After being read the requisitenarrative, participants were asked to rate the accept-ability of the scenario on a seven-point scale. Wethen used these ratings as the dependent variableagainst which we could assess the influence of eachvariable.

Responses ranged from 1 to 7, where 1 equals“strongly support,” 7 equals “strongly oppose,”and 4 equals “neutral.” Except for two conditions(condition 8 for Nanopill and Nanofuel), all con-ditions were on average rated neutral to stronglyoppose (mean > 4.00). No overall mean score forany application scenario can be read as supportive.The two conditions that were (weakly) supportedwere defined by all positive attributes. In otherwords, they were defined by scientists’ assessment of

low risk, controllability, impossibility, or low conse-quence of bodily invasion by nanoparticles and bya socially just production process. Except for thesetwo instances of guarded support for applicationsframed as entirely beneficial, participants tended tobe neutral or opposed to these nano-applications. Allnanofood applications were unsupported, includingthe entirely positive condition 8.

Condition 8 of the narratives, where all attributeswere offered in their most positive form, is akin tohow people are “hearing” about nano right now. Thistypical description of a nanotechnology applicationtakes the form of a description of the object plus arationale for its usefulness in the form of a claim ofbenefit. Nonetheless, the acceptance of these highlypositive accounts is marginal at best. These descrip-tive findings reveal an overall portrait of partici-pants as risk averse that contrasts with the benefit-centricity reported by most of the other nano-relatedsurveys to date.

At first glance, the means of the application sce-nario ratings (4.63/pill; 4.88/fuel to 5.41/food) do notseem that different, suggesting a lack of sensitivity toapplication domain. However, there are noticeabledifferences between experimental conditions withindomains and these help define some important differ-ences between domains. For nanopill and nanofuel,the change in mean scores between condition 8, themost positive, and condition 1, the most negative,corresponds to a change from roughly neutral/slightsupport to firm opposition. Compared to those twodomains, there is less variation in the differencein mean scores between most and least supportedconditions within the nanofood application domain(� 1.06 for nanofood vs. 2.17 for nanopill and 2.44


Table V. Fractional-Factorial Analysis of Nano-Applications

Domain Dimensions Sum of Squares df F Partial n2

Nanofood Scientists’ risk judgments 3.07 1 1.09 0.003Control 0.77 1 0.27 0.001Bodily invasion 20.47 1 7.26∗∗ 0.02Justice 11.67 1 4.14∗ 0.01

Error 908.10 322Corrected total 944.11 326

Nanopill Scientists’ risk judgments 7.03 1 2.16 0.007Control 1.29 1 0.4 0.001Bodily invasion 45.29 1 13.92∗∗∗ 0.04Justice 49.77 1 15.30∗∗∗ 0.05


Nanofuel Scientists’ risk judgments 52.49 1 17.01∗∗∗ 0.05Control 8.86 1 2.87 0.009Bodily invasion 55.71 1 18.06∗∗∗ 0.06Justice 55.06 1 17.84∗∗∗ 0.05


All Applications Scientists’ risk judgments 51.41 1 16.17∗∗∗ 0.02Control 1.06 1 0.33 0.000Bodily invasion 135.75 1 42.71∗∗∗ 0.04Justice 126.94 1 39.93∗∗∗ 0.04


∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.Notes: No risk = 1, expert concern for risk = 0; ability to control = 1, inability to control = 0; impossibility of bodily invasion = 1, bodilyinvasion = 0; socially just = 1, unjust = 0.

for nanofuel) and ranges roughly from minimally tostrongly oppose. Thus, the nanofood application isroundly unsupported, even in its most positive ver-sions, suggesting that the domain as a whole (un-like the other two domains where some scenarios aresupported) is the subject of heightened risk aversion.This is consistent with prior findings of risk aver-sion in the context of nanofood and food packagingapplications.(12,21)

Table V reports the results of the analysis of thetwo-level fractional factorial design using ANOVA.In addition to the three application domains we alsoexamined the four factors simultaneously across alldomains, referred to as the “all applications” model.Bodily invasion was a significant factor in eachapplication domain, which is consistent with the psy-chometric literature on risk perceptions. Justice in-fluenced the support for nanofuel, F(1, 314) = 17.84,p < 0.001, nanopill, F(1, 317) = 15.30, p < 0.001,nanofood, F(1, 326) = 4.14, p = 0.04, and all appli-cations, F(1, 1003) = 39.93, p < 0.001. Scientists’ riskjudgments significantly influenced the ratings of thenanopill, F(1, 314) = 17.01, p < 0.01, and all appli-

cations, F(1, 1003) = 16.17, p < 0.001, but not theratings of nanofood or nanopill. Controllability wasnonsignificant in each model.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This research demonstrates that justice, withsome exceptions, plays an important role in theformation of risk perceptions related to novel tech-nological risk objects. It provides mechanisms forassessing the possible implications of largely unfa-miliar risk objects, based on prior experiences andawareness of inequalities in the social distribution ofboth the risks and benefits of technological change.We were able to differentiate respondents in mean-ingful ways by their attitudes toward vulnerabilityand environmental justice, and such judgments werecomparatively predictive thereby confirming our firsthypothesis. That said, the briefer risk versus safetyvignettes, which intentionally provided risk-only andsafety-only statements following each nanotechnol-ogy’s purpose, revealed only some differentiation,thereby offering less than fully robust confirmation


of the second hypothesis (that justice and vulnera-bility will produce significant sensitivity to risk vs.safety information), while generating the surprisingfinding of risk aversion related to vulnerability in thecontext of safety messaging. This may be a functionof design, and a possible indication of the manypossibilities and tradeoffs that may have a part inthe overall judgment. It may also be a suspicioneffect, whereby the extra information offered in thevignettes is perceived by this group as a propagandiz-ing manipulation, which is then met with suspicionand so a negative/risk rating.(52)

A more complex and systematically manipulatedset of variables was, however, accomplished with thenarrative design, the results of which uphold the thirdhypothesis, which anticipated that, in this upstreamcontext (i.e., perceptions are as yet emerging), justiceand vulnerability would prevail against known psy-chometric variables (controllability, dread-like quali-ties, and whether or not technologies are understoodby scientists), under conditions of detailed and sys-tematically manipulated information.

Many aspects of these findings were intriguingand, overall, justice remained a powerful variableagainst other known and well-established psychome-tric predictors of risk. The general nonsignificanceof controllability in our narrative analysis is par-ticularly interesting. Perhaps this is a result of the“upstream” moment, and over time concern for con-trollability may grow alongside familiarity. It wouldalso be worth eliciting trust judgments and assess-ing more nuanced questions, such as controllabilityby whom? More generally, this line of questioningplaces emerging perceptions in an explicit “social-benefit” context, opening further questions, raisedhere and elsewhere, about trust in scientific experts,government regulation, and business.

These findings also demonstrate the benefits ofgreater specificity of application type and domain innanotechnology risk perception research. Some do-mains, such as food, appear to be perceived differ-ently from other domains. When the focus is placedon specific nano-applications, as in this analysis, pub-lic support tends more toward neutrality and lackor withdrawal of support. This is evident in the nar-rative analyses: when all four variables were pos-itive (safety/benefit oriented), then and only then,two of three applications were rated as acceptable.Together this suggests that the public’s likely ac-ceptance of nano-enabled products is reliant upona confluence of multiple factors. Not only must sci-entists declare them safe, but nano-enabled prod-

ucts must not be unpredictable as concerns bod-ily uptake or response and they must be manufac-tured in ways perceived as socially just. And eventhen, as the nanofood applications demonstrate, pub-lic acceptance may still not be forthcoming. Whilewe were careful to ensure balance across positiveand negative framing in this experiment, it appearsthat people are more sensitive to the negative in-formation. This is consistent with the negativity biasin risk perception work, whereby we are most sen-sitive and attentive to negative information.(53) Fi-nally, in terms of nano-enabled food, the robust-ness of bodily invasion in our experiments indicatesthat [nano]-food may trigger particularly strong re-actions and concerns because it is consumed inten-tionally, but possibly unknowingly.(20) This is likelyaffected by cultural constructions of food and wa-ter that place special meanings on their consumptionand embodiment, and that may distinguish it fromother applications, such as medicine, that are alsointentionally consumed. Still, it is the specific applica-tion and the particular way in which the public antic-ipates encountering it that drives perceptions of risk,not inadequate rationalization of benefits or charis-matic features of the technological object encoun-tered in the abstract.

Most broadly, the findings of this research sug-gest that technological objects are not encountered inthe abstract or only in their toxicological dimensionsbut are incorporated in complex social relationshipsthat help to define what the object is, what it is goodfor, as well as who benefits from it and who bearsthe costs. Extending ideas developed by economicsociologists,(54,55) risk scholars might benefit fromconsideration of the sociological concept “embed-dedness,” which refers to how a technological objectacquires its meaning in reference to its social con-texts. An embeddedness perspective requires thatone considers that the fields in which technologiesemerge and exist are laden with power to the de-gree that technological risk objects are entangled insocial institutions structuring opportunities for indi-viduals and communities to control how the bene-fits and risks of that technology are distributed.(56,57)

This is evident in recent, cross-national, deliberativeresearch on nanotechnologies, which has shown howparticipants felt greater concern for social risk, in-cluding fairness in the distribution of benefits andrisks across a stratified society, than for the techno-logical or toxicological risks of nanotechnology.(22)

Social risks include the possibilities of an unequaldistribution of benefits and risks across a society,


assessments of the fairness of that distribution, andrecognition that some social groups are more vul-nerable to bearing a disproportionate share of theill effects of technological innovation while oth-ers monopolize the benefits.(57−59) Attitudes towardjustice thus provide cues for the public to understandand evaluate the full range of likely social impactsof new technologies. A given technological object orsystem, such as nano-enabled cosmetics or medicaldevices, is not only evaluated as a discrete “thing”but as part of the social contexts in which it is encoun-tered, including assessments of procedural and socialjustice. As a result, our research suggests that it is notjust the toxicological risks of a nano-application thatwill face scrutiny, but also the processes by which thatapplication is produced, disseminated (sold), used,and disposed of, and the associated implications forequity and social justice. Public perceptions of nan-otechnologies are not just about toxicology or evenpsychometric and attitudinal variables, but are likelyto be shaped by how they are expected to affect thedistribution of risks and benefits across a diverse andunequal society, including the organizational and in-stitutional processes for managing them.

Future research could adopt a more nuancedfocus both on application domain and the socialcontexts in which they will be encountered and un-derstood by social groups and persons in differentsocial locations and ask: Under what conditions areconcerns for justice made salient and when are theymuted or trumped by other concerns? At the veryleast, questions of equity, vulnerability, and distri-butional justice should be addressed as new nano-applications are developed as they appear critical tothe success of the nanotechnology enterprise, aboveand beyond toxicological health and safety.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This material is based upon work supported bythe National Science Foundation under CooperativeAgreements # SES 0531184 and # SES 0938099 to theCenter for Nanotechnology in Society at UCSB andby NSF and the Environmental Protection Agencyunder Cooperative Agreement # EF 0830117 to theUC Center for Environmental Implications of Nan-otechnology. Any opinions, findings, and conclusionsor recommendations expressed in this material arethose of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe views of the National Science Foundation or theEnvironmental Protection Agency. This work hasnot been subjected to EPA review and no official

endorsement should be inferred. Appropriate ap-provals were obtained for the ethical use of humansubjects.

APPENDIX

These examples demonstrate all positive andnegative forms of the variable statements in thenarrative passage experiment across three domains:nanofood, nanopills, and nanofuel.

NANFOOD1

Nanotechnology may be used in food to improveits taste and nutritional value. Yet scientists are wor-ried about the health risks of this. Because nanopar-ticles are so small, they may be absorbed into thebloodstream through the intestines. We may not beable to control or retrieve these nanomaterials if thishappens. Currently, the production of nanofood isonly occurring in poor and minority neighborhoods.How acceptable is this on a scale between 1 and 7,where 1 is strongly support it, 4 is neutral, and 7 isstrongly oppose it?

NANFOOD8

Nanotechnology may be used in food to improveits taste and nutritional value. Scientists are positiveabout the benefits of this. Even though these materi-als are small, they cannot be absorbed into the blood-stream through the intestines. They are designed toexpel quickly through sweating or urination. Cur-rently, the production of nanofoods is occurring inboth poor and well-off neighborhoods. How accept-able is this on a scale between 1 and 7, where 1 isstrongly support it, 4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly op-pose it?

NANPILL1

Nanotechnology “pills” are being developedthat can be swallowed to provide exact delivery ofmedicines at the cellular level. Yet scientists are wor-ried about the health risks of this. Because nanopillsare so small, they may be absorbed into the blood-stream through the intestines. We may not be ableto control or retrieve these materials if this happens.Currently, the production of nanopills is only occur-ring in poor and minority neighborhoods. How ac-ceptable is this on a scale between 1 and 7, where 1is strongly support it, 4 is neutral, and 7 is stronglyoppose it?


NANPILL8

Nanotechnology “pills” are being developedthat can be swallowed to provide exact delivery ofmedicines at the cellular level. Scientists are posi-tive about the benefits of these. Even though thesenanopills are small, they cannot be absorbed intothe bloodstream through the intestines. They are de-signed to expel quickly through sweating or urina-tion. Currently, the production of nanopills is occur-ring in both poor and well-off neighborhoods. Howacceptable is this on a scale between 1 and 7, where1 is strongly support it, 4 is neutral, and 7 is stronglyoppose it?

NANFUEL1

An ultrafine powder made from nanoparticles isbeing developed to add to gasoline making it about30% more efficient. Yet scientists are worried aboutthe health risks of these. Because nanoparticles areso small, they may be absorbed into the bloodstreamthrough the skin. We may not be able to control or re-trieve these materials if this happens. Currently, theproduction of nanofuels is only occurring in poor andminority neighborhoods. How acceptable is this on ascale between 1 and 7, where 1 is strongly support it,4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly oppose it?

NANFUEL8

An ultrafine powder made from nanoparticles isbeing developed to add to gasoline making it about30% more efficient. Scientists are positive aboutthe benefits of this. Even though nanoparticles aresmall, they cannot be absorbed into the bloodstreamthrough the skin. They are designed to expel quicklythrough sweating or urination. Currently, the pro-duction of nanofuels is occurring in both poor andwell-off neighborhoods. How acceptable is this on ascale between 1 and 7, where 1 is strongly support it,4 is neutral, and 7 is strongly oppose it?

REFERENCES

1. Nel A, Xia T, Madler L, Li N. Toxic potential of materials atthe nanolevel. Science, 2006; 311(5761):622–627.

2. Maynard A, Aitken R, Butz T, Colvin V, Donaldson K,Oberdorster G, Philbert M, Ryan J, Seaton A, Stone V, TinkleS, Tran L, Walker N, Warheit DB. Safe handling of nanotech-nology. Nature, 2006; 444(16):267–269.

3. Oberdorster G. Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J. Nanotoxicol-ogy: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ul-trafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005;113(7):823–839.

4. Donaldson K., Aitken R, Tran L, Stone V, Duffin R, ForrestG, Alexander A. Carbon nanotubes: A review of their proper-ties in relation to pulmonary toxicology and workplace safety.Toxicological Sciences, 2006; 92(1):5–22.

5. Wittmaack K. In search of the most relevant parameter forquantifying lung inflammatory response to nanoparticle expo-sure: Particle number, surface area, or what? EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives, 2007; 115(2):187–194.

6. Wiesner MR, Lowry GV, Jones K, Hochella JMF, Di GiulioRT, Casman E, Bernhardt ES. Decreasing uncertainties in as-sessing environmental exposure, risk and ecological implica-tions of nanomaterials. Environmental Science and Technol-ogy, 2009; 43(17):6458–6462.

7. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie C, Conti J, Harthorn BH.Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. NatureNanotechnology, 2009; 4:752–758.

8. Kahan, DM. Nanotechnology and society: The evolution ofrisk perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4(11):705–706.

9. Wilsdon J, Willis R. See-through science: Why pub-lic engagement needs to move upstream. London: De-mos, 2004. Available at http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/paddlingupstream, accessed March 4, 2011.

10. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen GL. Affect,values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimen-tal investigation. Yale University: Cultural Cognition ProjectWorking Paper No. 22, 2007.

11. Scheufele D, Corley EA, Shih T, Dalrymple KE, Ho SS. Re-ligious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology inEurope and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology, 2008;4(2):91–94.

12. Vandermoere, F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, MaretteS, Roosen J. The public understanding of nanotechnology inthe food domain: The hidden role of views on science, tech-nology, and nature. Public Understanding of Science, 2009;doi:0963662509350139v1.

13. Vandermoere, F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S,Roosen J. The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology:About God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering withnature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2010; 12(2):373–381.

14. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV. Religios-ity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion for-mation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Sci-ence, 2009; 18(5):546–558.

15. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G. Imagining nan-otechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation inEurope and the United States. Public Understanding of Sci-ence, 2005; 14(1):81–90.

16. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G, KysarD. Biased assimilation, polarization, and cultural credibil-ity: An experimental study of nanotechnology risk percep-tions. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnolo-gies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsReport, 2008.

17. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. Public attitudes to-ward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effectsof cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotech-nology. Science Communication, 2005; 27(2):240–267.

18. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E,Guston D. Scientists worry about some risks more than thepublic. Nature Nanotechnology, 2007; 2:732–734.

19. Besley JC, Kramer V, Priest SH. Expert opinion on nanotech-nology: Risk, benefits, and regulation. Journal of NanoparticleResearch, 2008; 10(4):549–558.

20. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A. Public ac-ceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: Theinfluence of affect and trust. Appetite, 2007; 49(2):459–466.


21. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H, Keller C. Perceived risksand perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods andnanotechnology food packaging. Appetite, 2008; 51(2):283–290.

22. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. De-liberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and healthapplications in the United States and United Kingdom. NatureNanotechnology, 2009; 4(2):95–98.

23. Burningham K, Thrush D. Experiencing environmental in-equality: The everyday concerns of disadvantaged groups.Housing Studies, 2003; 18(4):517–536.

24. Priest S. The North American opinion climate for nanotech-nology and its products: Opportunities and challenges. Journalof Nanoparticle Research, 2006; 8(5):563–568.

25. Besley JC, McComas KA, Waks L. Media use and the per-ceived justice of local science authorities. Journalism & MassCommunication Quarterly, 2006; 83(4):801–818.

26. McComas KA, Besley JC, Yang Z. Risky business: The per-ceived justice of local scientists and community support fortheir research. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(6):1539–1552.

27. Taylor D. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm.American Behavioral Scientist, 2000; 43(4):508–580.

28. Zimmerman R. Social equity and environmental risk. RiskAnalysis, 1993; 13(6):649–666.

29. Szasz A, Meuser M. Environmental inequalities: Literature re-view and proposals for new directions in research and theory.Current Sociology, 1997; 45(3):99–120.

30. Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. Environmental justice: Human healthand environmental inequalities. Annual Review of PublicHealth, 2006; 27:103–124.

31. Bullard R, Wright B. Race, Place, and Environmental Jus-tice After Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuildand Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Boulder, CO:Westview Press, 2009.

32. Bullard R. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices fromthe Grassroots. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1993.

33. Bullard R. Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice andCommunities of Color. New York: Random House, 1994.

34. Satterfield T, Mertz C, Slovic P. Discrimination, vulnerability,and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(1):115–129.

35. Finucane M, Slovic P, Mertz C, Flynn J, Satterfield T. Gender,race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Riskand Society, 2000; 2(2):159–172.

36. Brown P, Ferguson FI. “Making a big stink”: Women’s work,women’s relationships, and their toxic waste activism. Chapter14 in Sachs CE (ed). Women Working in the Environment.Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis, 1997.

37. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race, and perception ofenvironmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(6):1101–1108.

38. Cobb MD. Framing effects on public opinion about nanotech-nology. Science Communication, 2005; 27(2):221–239.

39. Smiley Smith SE, Hosgood D, Michelson ES, Stowe MH.Americans’ nanotechnology risk perception. Journal of Indus-trial Ecology, 2008; 12(3):459–473.

40. Schutz H, Wiedemann PM. Framing effects on risk perceptionof nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 2008;17(3):369–379.

41. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. The affectheuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 2007;177(3):1333–1352.

42. Satterfield T, Slovic P, Gregory R. Narrative valuation ina policy judgment context. Ecological Economics, 2000;34(3):315–331.

43. Sanfey A, Hastie R. Does evidence presentation format affectjudgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data forjudgments. Psychological Science, 1998; 9(2):99–103.

44. Kearney AR. Understanding global change: A cognitive per-spective on communicating through stories. Climate Change,1994; 27:419–441.

45. Henwood K, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Simmons P. Research-ing risk: Narrative, biography, subjectivity. Forum Qualita-tive Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,2010; 11(1), Art. 20, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1001201. Accessed on August 21, 2010.

46. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan, 2000.47. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236 (4799):280–285.48. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeo-

ple’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. RiskAnalysis, 2007; 27(1):59–69.

49. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Experimental Designs UsingANOVA. Belmont CA: Thompson Higher Education, 2007.

50. Kirk RE. Experimental Design: Procedures for the BehavioralSciences, 2nd Edition. Belmont CA: Wadsworth, 1982.

51. Hsee CK. Less is better: When low-value options are valuedmore highly than high-value options. Journal of BehavioralDecision Making, 1998; 11:107–121.

52. MacGregor, DG, Slovic P, Granger Morgan M. Perceptionof risks from electromagnetic fields: A psychometric evalua-tion of a risk-communication approach. Risk Analysis, 1994;14(5):815–828.

53. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Better negative than positive? Evi-dence of a bias for negative information about possible healthdangers. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(1):199–206.

54. Polanyi K. The Great Transformation: The Political and Eco-nomic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press,2001.

55. Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: Theproblem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,1985; 91(3):481–510.

56. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveyingthe risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(4):689–701.

57. Harthorn BH, Oaks L. (eds). Risk, Culture, and Health In-equality: Shifting Perceptions of Danger and Blame. West-port, CT: Praeger, 2003.

58. Douglas M. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. Lon-don: Routledge, 1992.

59. Lupton D. Risk. London: Routledge, 1999.60. Krieger N. (ed). Embodying Inequality: Epidemiological Per-

spectives. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publ, 2004.

vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent u.s. nanotechnology risk perceptions

Documents