Risk-Benefit Perceptions of Nanotechnology

Data to date indicate that awareness of nanotechnologies among various publics remains low, suggesting that perceptions thereof are based on heuristics derived from earlier experiences. Trust, or lack thereof, in governance institutions and actors is a key factor in this regard. Technological proponents also draw on their understandings of history, including their assessment of public responses to previous technologies. They may see a very different risk-benefit balance than the general public, including the risk of public rejection. Regulatory agencies have yet another lens, and may view emerging technologies partly in terms of threats to their capacity, and opportunities to advance institutional priorities. In summary, various stakeholders are likely to perceive the risk-benefit equation for nanoscale technologies differently.

In terms of public opinion, a limited amount of research has been published so far, mostly assessing attitudes in the Eurpean Union and the United States. Generally, publics on both sides of the Atlantic believe that the benefits of nanoscale technologies will outweigh their risks, although there are some variations between studies. Participants consistently report a low level of awareness of nanotechnologies, and score poorly on factual knowledge tests. Scholars theorize that under such conditions, citizens apply heuristics, or shortcuts, derived from prior experience in order to make judgments. To the degree that this surmise is correct, current opinions toward nanoscale technologies primarily reflect existing attitudes toward technology in general, and the perceived track record of relevant authorities. Thus, public sentiment could shift dramatically in response to either a crisis or a breakthrough, particularly if the event attracted substantial media attention.

The available evidence also indicates that applications matter. Potential technological solutions to recognized societal problems, such as alternative electricity generation, tend to find approval. In such cases, the public benefits are clear, and citizens might well be willing to accept a reasonable level of risk. Applications fraught with moral ambiguity, such as the use of nanotechnologies to create “enhanced” humans, receive less automatic support, and engender more concern. Food is another example: participants in one study rated nanotechnology in food packaging as less problematic than nanoparticles in food for consumption. At this time, public perceptions toward nanotechnologies manifest a combination of application-specific risk/benefit calculation and the adaptation of existing value frameworks to novel hypothetical scenarios. The situation may change as public awareness grows, and the direction of that shift may depend primarily on future “watershed” events.