Public Understanding of Nanotechnology

Public understanding of nanotechnology is a broad concept. It not only relates to the scientific aspects but also to the significant economic, social, and ethical implications of nanotechnology in society. While understanding is sometimes equated with interest or awareness, it is more frequently defined as citizens' ability to make sense of the scientific and social aspects surrounding nanotechnology; often measured with short knowledge quizzes on public opinion surveys.

Traditionally, outreach efforts have often followed knowledge-deficit models, assuming that members of the [Page 642]public act as scientific citizens who are able and motivated to actively seek out scientific information, and whose decision making—as a result—will correspond with scientific reasoning. This line of thinking, however, is at odds with more recent research which has consistently shown that levels of scientific knowledge among the public have remained relatively low and static over time, indicating that citizens may not be as able or as motivated to seek out scientific information as originally proposed.

Instead, citizens often rely on ideological predispositions and heuristics to understand scientific topics. This perspective—sometimes referred to as low-information rationality—argues that individuals are cognitive misers and, therefore, collect only as much information as they deem necessary when faced with decisions about scientific issues or related policy proposals. In order to maximize efficiencies, citizens instead rely on heuristics or information shortcuts that help them make sense of complex scientific issues, such as nanotechnology, even if their understanding of the science is limited.

Mass media therefore play an important role in distilling scientific information in a way that is easily digestible for miserly audiences. Specifically, journalists rely on frames in order to present complex scientific information to the public in a way that reduces complexity and makes connections to other technologies. These frames therefore play to implicit connections between an issue like nanotechnology, and people's preexisting interpretive schemas. As a result, they indirectly influence how citizens interpret media messages and form opinions about science and scientific research. The term Frankenfood, for instance, offered a very intuitive way of interpreting the emerging debate about transgenic corn in the 1990s without addressing the scientific complexities surrounding the issue or agricultural biotechnology.

So far, U.S. media coverage of nanotechnology has remained relatively positive since its emergence on the public agenda. This is mostly due to the positive framing of the issue in elite media, focusing on nanotechnology's economic and scientific potential. Until now, these frames have proven to be more powerful in shaping public opinion than what the public knows about nanotechnology. This may change as nanotechnology emerges more prominently on the public agenda.

Even now, citizens know more than they think they know. While many individuals feel that they are unaware or uninformed about nanotechnology, surveys show that a majority of Americans have at least a basic understanding of the economic impact of nanotechnology. At the same time, however, recent research has raised concerns about information disconnects between lay public opinion and the views of leading U.S. nanoresearchers. In particular, surveys have shown that adverse environmental impacts and potential health problems related to nanotechnology were among the most frequently mentioned potential risks among leading U.S. nanoscientists. Both concerns, in contrast, were not seen as serious concerns among most members of the lay public.

...