Risk Communication

Risk communication is an ongoing exchange of information among individuals, groups, and institutions involved with the evaluation, characterization, and management of risks. Extending this to the context of nanotechnology, it refers to the constant exchanges of risks information about the novel technology among important stakeholders, such as regulators, policy makers, scientists, and [Page 675]the public, through different communication channels. Empirical research has shown that a gap exists in risk perceptions about nanotechnology between nanoscientists and the public, which is indicative of serious communication deficits.

In response to this, risk communication efforts specific to the emerging technology have begun to take place in the United States. Such efforts are essential to ensure that the public receives accurate, balanced, and easily understood facts about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, to enable them to make informed judgments about nanotech-related risks. More importantly, incorporating public feedbacks is necessary so that negative perceptions against earlier technologies, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), will not have a spillover effect on nanotechnology-enabled commercial products.

The need for risk communication stems from the fact that the public perception of risks frequently do not align with scientific assessments. Scientists' assessments of risks are often deemed as objective, and can be empirically measured and formally quantified. Scientific experts often make quantitative estimates of risk by generating numerical comparisons between risks, by considering probability not magnitude, and by formulating cost-benefit calculations. Conversely, public perceptions of risks are regarded as subjective and easily influenced by external factors, such as a risk's controllability, catastrophic potential, scientific understanding, and effects on future generations. In addition, the lay public tends to use affective considerations over cognitive evaluations to make risk judgments.

With respect to nanotechnology, a study conducted by Professor Dietram A. Scheufele and his colleagues demonstrated that even though nanoscientists were more optimistic about the potential benefits of nanotechnology than were the general public, disparities exist between the two groups with respect to specific risks. For example, the researchers found that members of the public were more concerned about the potential loss of privacy and the adverse economic impacts of nanotechnology than were the scientists. On the contrary, nanoscientists were more concerned about the environmental and long-term health impacts of nanotechnology than were the public. In other words, the scientists working directly with the technology expressed stronger concerns about specific potential risk areas than did the general public. This implies that a gap exists in risk perceptions among scientists and the general public, which is indicative of serious communication deficits.