Upload
james-banks
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS – INTEREST, ATTENTION…
David M. BerubeProfessor of Science Communication, STS, and CRDM (Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media), NCSU
Director: NCSU Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCOST) Project/Center/Institute (value added).
Manager, Center for Converging Technologies, LLC – social media consultancy (trade assns and food industry).
National Chair Society for Risk Analysis Risk Communication Specialty.
PI: NSF NIRT #0809470 – Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement, 2007-2011…
Nan
ote
chn
olo
gy
Inte
gra
tio
n F
oru
m 2
010
©
Ber
ub
e
Mar
ch 2
3,
2010
– R
alei
gh
, N
C
http://pcost.org
1. Cultural worldview theories (see Kahan et al). Ideological associations between perceptions on safety and who and how to regulate (new data).
2. Religiosity theories, see Scheufele et al. Beliefs linked to perceptions (new data). Relinked it to socio-economic (new data).
3. Flattened interest, see Kahan, Scheufele, Satterfield, and Berube.
4. Familiarity hypothesis – linking perception to familiarity; deficit theory revisited.
REVIEW
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIESCANADA AND EUROPE (GERMANY)
2004: UK-BMRB2004: DE-Komm-
passion2005: CAN-Eisendel2007: BfR
IRGC, 2009
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE (DYNAMICS)ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES USA (3 yr span)
2004: Cobb/ Macoubrie
2005a: Einsiedel2005b: Macoubrie2006: Hart2007: Kahan
IRGC, 2009
• Public interest in science/tech policy.– Traditionally low (7-10%). Likely to be case/region
specific.– Competing interests (unemployment, economy,
wars….)
• Methodologies.– Critical case studies- hold strategic importance to
issues. – Experimental design (Kahan).
MOVE TO CRITICAL CASE STUDIES
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
R > B B > R R = B Unsure
Hart 06
Hart 07
Hart 08
Unaided Evaluation - General
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES(HART 06-08)
RISK SALIENCE EFFECT
Dillman National Public Survey(w U South Carolina, N=307)
– Impressions of nano and synthetic bio (non-framed),
– General risk levels (Slovic),– Concerns of nanoparticle risks,– Perceptions of expert ratings of
risk,– Sources and use of various
media for risk info• Trust • Social media sources,
– Demographics ***• Religion• Ideology.
BERUBE et al. NEW DATA (2009)
Expert Delphi Study
(NCSU)
Expert Elicitation Nanoparticle toxicity, Potentially
problematic uses, Potentially
problematic applications,
Estimations of public perceptions of risk.
UNPRIMED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA
“What comes to mind when you hear the word “nanotechnology”?
• “Very very small subject matter- beyond microscopic.”• “Cutting edge research and technology that has made products smaller, faster, lighter, and stronger.”• “I actually don’t have the slightest idea, but I’m going to take a guess and say that it would be the smallest pieces of technological machines that can be made.”
KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATAEXPERT – HYPOTHETICAL EXPERT VIEW OF PUBLIC
EXPERTS: which current and predictably future products involving the applications of nanoparticles are potentially or actually problematic to EHS?
REGULATION HYPOTHESIS
Rank Experts: Top 5 applications
1 Cosmetics
2 Fuel additives
3 Anti-microbial clothing
4 Toys and baby products
5 Pesticides
PUBLIC: If experts were asked which potential or actual uses of nanoparticles most concerned the public, how do you think they would rate the public’s concerns?
Rank Public: Top 5 Applications
1 Medicine
2 Pesticides
3 Food Additives
4 Anti-microbial treatments
5 Food Packaging
EXPERTS: What applications or products do you assume the public believes is potentially or actually problematic (using ordinal rankings)?
KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATAEXPERT HYPOTHETICAL PUBLIC - ACTUAL PUBLIC
Rank Top 5 Applications
1 Cosmetics
2 Food additives
3 Sunscreens
4 All CNTs
5 Nanobots
Rank Top 5 Applications
1 Food additives
2 Pesticides
3 Drugs
4 Food packaging
5 Water treatment
PUBLIC: how concerned are you about risk to health and safety of the following potential or actual uses of nanoparticles as a component of each of the following (on a 7-item scale).
FOOD
HEALTH AND SAFETYPUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES AND TRUST
PUBLIC: Which sources are you most likely to turn to FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as probably would or more)?
Rank Top 5 EHS sources for info about risks
1 Doctors and health
professionals (73%)
2 University researchers (41%)
3 Family members
4 Friends and acquaintances
5 Industrial researchers
1. “Religious leaders” 2nd to last ahead of “Elected representatives”.
2. “Industrial scientists” were deemed more trustworthy than “NGOs”.
How often do you use the following media sources FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as once a day or more)?
Rank Media sources
1 Television (59%)
2 Internet (44%)
3 Radio
4 Newspapers
Rank Top Web 2.0 internet sources
1 News accumulators (27%)
2 Personal accumulators (21%)
3 Health Blogs
4 Social networking sites
5 Wikis
Which internet sources do you use FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as one a week or more)?
HEALTH AND SAFETY SOURCES INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA (Web 2.0)
• 52.8% - SLIGHT to NO risk.
• 74.6% - MODERATE to NO risk.
• Only 13.0% - HIGH health risk (only higher than X-Rays, cell phones, transfusions, and air travel), and less risky than storms and floods.
• Top 3 – street drugs, cigarette smoking, and AIDS.
• Weighted Ranking - 18/24 risks.
• Behind: stress, motor vehicle accidents, cloning, sun tanning, pesticide residues on foods, coal and oil burning plants, radon…
HEALTH AND SAFETYCOMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF RISKS
Slovic 1994/Berube 2009
Nan
ote
chn
olo
gy
Inte
gra
tio
n F
oru
m 2
010
©
Ber
ub
e
Mar
ch 2
3,
2010
– R
alei
gh
, N
C
COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLICAND THE MEDIA
This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 0809470, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement.
NCSU, U Wisconsin, U Minnesota, U South Carolina, & Rice U. (6 grad. students).