Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science
- 733 Downloads
In this article, we report data from an online questionnaire study with 587 respondents, representative for the adult U.S. population in terms of age, gender, and level of education. The aim of this study was to assess how interest in science and knowledge as well as beliefs about science are associated with risk and benefit perceptions of nanotechnology. The findings suggest that the U.S. public is still rather unfamiliar with nanotechnology. Those who have some knowledge mainly have gotten it from TV and the Internet. The content of current media reports is perceived as fairly positive. Knowledge of scientific methods is unrelated to benefit and risk perceptions, at least when other predictors are controlled. In contrast, positive beliefs about science (e.g., its impact on economy or health) and more sophisticated epistemological beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge are moderately linked to more positive perceptions of nanotechnology. The only exception is the perception of scientific uncertainty: This is associated with less positive evaluations. Finally, higher engagement with science is associated with higher risk perceptions. These findings show that laypersons who are engaged with science and who are aware of the inherent uncertainty of scientific evidence might perceive nanotechnology in a somewhat more differentiated way, contrary to how it is portrayed in the media today.
KeywordsRisk perceptions Benefit perceptions Nanotechnology Public understanding of science Epistemological beliefs Beliefs about science Societal implications
This research was supported in part by a grant from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).
- Besley J (2010) Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Emerg Health Threats J 3:e8Google Scholar
- Gott R, Duggan S (1998) Understanding scientific evidence. In: Ratcliff M (ed) ASE guide to secondary science education. Stanley Thornes, Cheltenham, pp 92–99Google Scholar
- Hofer BK, Pintrich PR (eds) (2002) Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
- HRA (Hart Research Associates, Inc) (2009) Nanotechnology, synthetic biology, & public opinion. A report of findings conducted on behalf of: Project on emerging nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/8286/. Assessed 6 May 2011
- Lee C, Scheufele DA (2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: a media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal Mass Commun Q 83:819–834Google Scholar
- Lewenstein BV, Gorss J, Radin J (2005) The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the annual conference of International Communication Association, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Marschall J, Rahnke M, Otto L, Maier M (2011) The representation of scientific evidence in German science TV shows and recipients’ understanding of science: results from an online field experiment. Paper presented at the annual conference of International Communication Association, Boston. http://www.uni-koblenz-landau.de/landau/fb8/ikms/ikm/forschung/wiskom)
- Miller JD (1983) Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112(2):29–48Google Scholar
- National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators: 2010. National Science Foundation, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
- Stocklmayer SM, Bryant C (2011) Science and the public—what should people know? Int J Sci Educ B. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.543186