PERSPECTIVES

Expert opinion on nanotechnology: risks, benefits,and regulation

John C. Besley Æ Victoria L. Kramer Æ Susanna H. Priest

Received: 23 March 2007 / Accepted: 16 October 2007 / Published online: 8 November 2007

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract A survey of American (US) nanotechno-

logy researchers (N = 177) suggests a diversity of

views about what areas are most important to the

burgeoning field, as well as perceptions about the

overall benefits and risks of such research. On

average, respondents saw a range of technologies as

key and viewed public health and environmental

issues as areas where both risks and the need for

regulation are greatest. These areas were also where

respondents said current regulations were least ade-

quate. Factor analyses of the survey questions

suggest that, when considering both risks and regu-

lations, respondents make a distinction between

health and environmental risks, and what might

be termed ‘‘social risks’’ (e.g., invasion of privacy,

use of nanotechnology in weapons, and economic

impacts).

Keywords Nanotechnology � Expert �Opinion � Survey � Risk � Societal implications

Introduction

Social scientists have begun to study what—if any-

thing—regular citizens think about nanotechnology

(Barnett et al. 2006), but these researchers have focused

less on what nano-scale scientists and engineers think

about their field. The current project provides evidence

regarding what American researchers who have pub-

lished research on nanotechnology view as the most

important potential benefits and risks of nanotechnol-

ogy-oriented research, as well as views about the current

state of government regulation. It aims to provide

insight into what those most directly involved in shaping

nanotechnology see as the current state of research as

well as their views about the future, and also provides

the opportunity to observe which expert perceptions

currently represent broadly shared consensus and which

provoke a broader range of individual opinions.

The social scientific study of nanotechnology also

provides the opportunity to learn about the more

general relationship between emerging technologies

and their societal context (the ‘‘public sphere’’).

Researchers interested in such issues have high-

lighted the importance of ensuring a democratic

trajectory for nanotechnology (Macnaugthen et al.

2005). Of course, others have noted the potential

benefits of avoiding the type of societal concern that

accompanied the introduction of agricultural biotech-

nology to the marketplace (Einsiedel and Goldenberg

2006). While exploring the views of experts is useful

in its own right, it may also prove informative to

J. C. Besley (&) � V. L. Kramer

School of Journalism and Mass Communications,

University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA

e-mail: jbesley@sc.edu

S. H. Priest

Hank Greenspun School of Journalism and Media Studies,

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

123

J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558

DOI 10.1007/s11051-007-9323-6

understand how the views of experts and those of the

general public may be alike or different (e.g., Doble

1995). The present study represents an initial step

towards such comparisons.

Below, we outline the recent literature on attitudes

towards nanotechnology. The process used to develop

a list of nanotechnology researchers for purposes of

the present study is then described, along with details

of the survey procedures. The survey results and a

short discussion follow.

Literature review

At present, we know of no research that has system-

atically looked at the opinions of representative

groups of scientists involved in nanotechnology

research, especially in the US. In general, data on

expert opinions have frequently been collected as part

of technology assessment and foresight activities

(Georghiou 1996; Joss and Belluci 2002) but rarely

in research concerned with opinion more generally.

Recent research involving nanotechnology did, how-

ever, look at a small (N = 46), non-comprehensive

group of European nanotechnology experts and found

that those experts see less risk than laypeople (Siegrist

et al. 2007). With regard to biotechnology, what few

studies do exist show that even experts can have

divergent opinions. Scientists may generally be more

optimistic than the public, but this does not mean that

all scientists see only benefits (Priest 2000). Scientists

have also been shown to worry about the nature and

tone of media coverage in the case of biotechnology,

with 25 of 30 British scientists contacted agreeing that

media coverage of this topic was ‘‘overly dramatic

and sensational’’ (Gunter et al. 1999).

Research on public opinion about nanotechnology

highlights the range of views while also showing that

Americans have a generally optimistic view about

the potential personal and societal benefits of techno-

logical advance. Largely echoing research on

biotechnology (Shanahan et al. 2001; Priest et al.

2003; Besley and Shanahan 2005; Gaskell et al.

2004), the key variables that researchers have exam-

ined, in this regard, include the relative risks and

benefits of nanotechnology, alongside science knowl-

edge, media attention, and views about those involved

in scientific research. At present, the public opinion

climate in the US for nanotechnology seems generally

positive, more consistent with the pro-technology

‘‘bent’’ of American culture and less consistent with

the recent historical course of agricultural biotech-

nology and stem cell research, for which a broad range

of ethical, social, environmental and health concerns

have been raised. In particular, a 2004 random sample

survey supported the notion that Americans generally

have an optimistic view of nanotechnology, with

potential health benefits topping the list of key

benefits and invasion of privacy and military uses

emerging as key concerns. Many respondents, unsur-

prisingly, had no clear views, but a large number

evinced low trust in business leaders to appropriately

manage the technology (Macoubrie 2006; Cobb and

Macoubrie 2004). This research was based on an

exploratory internet survey (Bainbridge 2002).

Analysis of 2002/2003 Eurobarometer data and

comparison data from the US similarly showed that

Americans seem more optimistic about nanotechnol-

ogy than Europeans, with almost half saying that such

technologies will improve quality of life. Just a quarter

of Europeans reported such optimism. Whereas only a

quarter of Americans said they did not know anything

about the likely impact of nanotechnology, half of

Europeans gave this response (Gaskell et al. 2005). A

comparison of US and Canadian survey data from

2005 notes, however, that the presence in both

countries of several identifiable sub-groups who see

few benefits to new technology may eventually

present substantial challenges to wide-spread accep-

tance of nanotechnology (Priest 2006).

Several studies have also looked at media cover-

age of nanotechnology with their evidence suggesting

that, as with biotechnology (Nisbet and Lewenstein

2002), the early stages of media coverage have

proven largely positive. The emphasis of most of this

coverage has been on technological innovation and

potential benefits (Gorss et al. 2005; Stephens 2005).

Initial research suggests that, if framing of nanotech-

nology were to become more negative, this could

sway public opinion (Cobb 2005). Research on the

role of the media in forming attitudes towards

nanotechnology in the US has thus far demonstrated

that individuals who use specialized science media

tend to express greater individual-level support for

nanotechnology (Scheufele and Lewenstein 2005).

These researchers have also shown that views about

scientists, particularly their trustworthiness, are

important in the context of people’s views about

550 J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558

123

nanotechnology (Lee et al. 2005). In other words,

people who use specialized science media and who

trust scientists are more positive in their views of

nanotechnology than are others.

Method

Respondent selection

With regard to the participants of the current study,

the goal was to identify scholars recently active in

creating published research regarding some aspect of

nanotechnology. ‘‘Nanoresearchers’’ are not a well-

defined group since it is a cross-disciplinary field. In

the language of survey research, there is no clear

population from which to draw a random sample such

as might be provided by drawing a sample from the

membership of a single organization. Considering

that our goal was to characterize the perspectives of

currently active researchers in the field, we decided to

employ a census approach rather than a sampling

approach by attempting to identify as comprehensive

as possible a group of active researchers during the

period immediately preceding the survey and then

inviting all of them to participate. We therefore

used the ISI Web of KnowledgeSM database—what

we believe to be the most interdisciplinary and

comprehensive of the available science literature

databases—to identify individuals recently publish-

ing articles on nanotechnology. In effect, we defined

‘‘active researchers’’ as ‘‘researchers publishing in ISI

listed journals.’’ We recognize that this census

approach excludes those publishing only in non-ISI

journals, as well as those who are not publishing at

all, which constitute inherent limitations of our

study.1 We then contacted all corresponding authors

with USA addresses.2 To identify corresponding

authors, we searched all databases and languages of

the ISI Web of Science with ‘‘article’’ selected as the

document type. The date searched was from January

1, 2004, to October 10, 2006, the day our contact list

was created. Using the ‘‘article topic’’ search terms of

nanotech* OR nanosci* yielded 1,840 total articles.

Any article with a country other than the USA for the

corresponding author’s address was removed. Most

authors had an e-mail address listed. For those who

did not or who had multiple e-mail addresses listed,

their organization’s or institution’s website was used

to identify the correct e-mail address. Not all e-mail

addresses could be found.

For specialized populations such as the one

explored here, such sampling procedures make the

most sense and provide an excellent opportunity to

report on what we believe is a core group of current

nanotechnology experts based in the US, although not

technically a sample. The final list contained 563

corresponding authors with at least a mailing address.

Fifteen authors had bad addresses for both e-mail and

mailing addresses, yielding 548 authors with at least

one good address. We were able to identify valid

email addresses for 462 respondents (that is, the

emails were not returned as invalid in these cases).

Requests to participate were sent in three waves.

First, a letter was sent on university letterhead

requesting authors’ participation and giving them

the survey website. This letter was followed up with

an e-mail request one week later and a reminder e-

mail 2 weeks after the first e-mail. The survey itself

was web-based only. While all requests to participate

included the survey’s internet address, no attempt

was made to send hard-copy surveys since we

presumed all US-based researchers would have

internet access. (Only 15 respondents with invalid

e-mail addresses also had invalid mailing addresses.)

The invitation emails were all sent from an ‘‘.edu’’

1 The master list of journals included in this database can be

found on the Thomson Scientific website (http://www.

scientific.thomson.com/mjl/). The exclusion of those who

have not recently been successful in obtaining funding for their

work and/or in getting articles accepted in peer-reviewed

journals is not an important limitation since the purpose of our

study was to document the perspectives of active researchers,

that is, those researchers whose work was identified and sup-

ported through peer review decisions. The limitations of peer

review are an interesting topic in the sociology of science,

although entirely outside the scope of this study.

2 The limitation to US researchers was for several reasons.

First, this project was part of a larger effort focused on US

public opinion formation, and we wanted comparable data for

the US scientific community. Second, we are unaware of any

way to verify that the ISI database—while international in

audience and scope—provides equivalent coverage of research

done outside the US, which could have represented a signif-

icant distortion if we had used it to try to characterize the

perspectives of non-US, as well as US, researchers.

J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558 551

123

account on an individual basis to avoid spam filters.

The design of the website was kept simple with all of

the questions appearing on a single page, and with

each section appearing within a single table that

contained the core question, relevant issue areas, and

the available response categories. Respondents were

not required to answer all questions.

In total, 177 usable surveys were completed. The

most conservative response rate, based on having at

least one form of contact information (either regular

mail and e-mail) with the authors, was 32.3%. Of

those for whom a working e-mail address was

obtained, 38.1% responded. This is a reasonable

response rate for a survey of this kind and resulted in

an appropriately diverse sample. Of those who

responded, 20.3% (N = 36) reported their highest

degree is in engineering, 13.6% (N = 24) reported

their highest degree is in chemistry, 18.1% (N = 32)

in physics, 11.3% (N = 20) in some form of mate-

rials science, 18.6% (N = 33) in biology, 5.1%

(N = 9) in social science or the humanities, and

2.3% (N = 4) in business or law. Some 5.6%

(N = 10) did not indicate their degree area and

5.1% (N = 9) responded with a science degree that

did not fit into one of the categories described above.

This means that the bulk of the respondents (92.1%)

came from some form of science background, not

surprisingly. In terms of age, the survey used a

variable based on the year in which each respondent’s

degree was granted, which we felt was a better

indicator of senior versus more junior status and less

likely to go unanswered than a direct age question.

Some 10.4% (N = 18) said they received their degree

between 2002 and 2006 (the year of the survey),

19.1% (N = 33) earned their degree between 1997

and 2001, 18.5% (N = 32) earned their degree

between 1992 and 1996, and 15.6% (N = 27) earned

their degree between 1987 and 1991. The 36.4%

(N = 63) who received their degree prior to 1987

were the largest group of respondents. Four respon-

dents did not answer this question.

Questionnaire

The questions used in the survey emerged from open-

ended interviews with eight nanotechnology

researchers identified through a search of National

Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health

grant databases. While other potential issues and

future applications might be imagined that do not

appear in our questionnaire, we limited our questions

to the items that arose in these interviews in order to

keep the survey instrument brief, thereby avoiding

respondent fatigue (which would have been one

possible source of lower response rates). Three

graduate students then pre-tested the questionnaire

for clarity and time.

The questions discussed below addressed (1) what

areas respondents saw as the most important areas in

nano-research; (2) what views respondents held about

potential nanotechnology benefits; (3) what views

they held about nanotechnology risks; (4) and their

perspectives on regulation. (To avoid redundancy, the

specific questions asked will be presented along with

the results later in this paper.) Both means and

standard deviations for each of our measures, as well

as the frequencies (as percentages) for each category,

are reported. Exploratory factor analyses using prin-

cipal component analysis (PCA) and Varimax

rotation were also conducted for each section of the

survey. For those not familiar with this analytical

strategy, such analyses enable researchers to look at

the linear relationships among variables and assess

whether patterns of responses exist within a group of

measures. When such patterns exist, it makes sense to

put the related variables together into a single

variable (often referred to as a ‘‘factor,’’ as below).

The averages and standard deviations for these new

variables are included in each of the tables (see items

labeled ‘‘Factor Mean’’ in all results tables). It is

important to provide these means because the created

variables were then used to explore the relationships

among the various topics addressed in the study (e.g.,

the apparent correlation between perceived risks and

perceived benefits), as well as with respondents’

areas of study and research experience. Because they

are based on multiple questions, the newly created

factor measurements (and their factor means) should

have less measurement error and therefore be more

reliable than a variable created from any single

question.3

3 However, factor means for factors composed of different

numbers of items cannot be directly compared, unless divided

by the number of items included. Also, when combining

variables, we did not weigh individual variables by their factor

scores.

552 J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558

123

In short, factor analysis of this type allows

researchers to identify cases where the answers to a

particular group of questions might best be thought of

as reflecting a single underlying factor, and when

they are not best thought of in this way. Variables

were said to fit into a specific factor if they had a

component score above .5 within just one, but not

both, of the factors. Those that did not meet this

criterion were not included in the summative factors.

Cronbach’s alpha—a measure of internal reliability—

is reported for any created factor containing three or

more variables. A Pearson’s correlation co-efficient is

reported for factors with just two variables. The

names given to the factors must be chosen by the

researcher and are meant to summarize the compo-

nent variables.

While probability or p-values are reported for

reference for the reported correlations, the argument

can be made that inferential statistics are not relevant

to census data. If we treat the group of respondents

here as a census rather than a sample, all observed

relationships would be considered significant; it is not

necessary or meaningful to estimate statistical sig-

nificance reflecting how accurately observed results

might represent results obtainable from the entire

population. However, the values are still reported as

reference for readers accustomed to referring to them.

Results

Nanotechnology risks, benefits, and regulation

The first set of questions analyzed presented a

number of areas of nanotechnology research and

asked respondents to indicate how important these are

to ‘‘current nanotechnology research and develop-

ment.’’ Of the nine areas assessed, those associated

with carbon nanotubes and quantum dots fit together

as a single factor (r = .76, p [ .00) and were rated as

the most important (Table 1). The next two areas

where the respondents saw the greatest importance

were in the areas of chemical sensors and computer

circuitry, respectively. Both of these variables were

highly correlated with both of the factors that

emerged from the analysis. They are therefore treated

separately and not included in either of the new

factors created based on the factor analysis. The

variable related to ‘‘targeted drug delivery’’ was the

next most highly ranked item. It fit together well with

five other variables related to medical and biological

uses of nanotechnology (a = .89). In general, most of

the respondents reported either neutral or positive

views about the importance of most areas of research.

The next group of questions assessed dealt with

the potential benefits of nanotechnology. Similar to

the procedure above, scientists then were asked to

rank the importance of several potential nanotech-

nology benefits (Table 2). The respondents clearly

indicated that they perceive the most benefits will

come in areas of health and technology, with the

variables for health and medical benefits factoring

together with variables related to new materials and

computing (a = .79). Three variables associated with

food and the environment also factored together

(a = .84), with relatively lower means for these

variables suggesting that the respondents saw them as

of secondary importance. The variable related to

energy production did not clearly fit into either of the

two factors that emerged from the benefits factor

analysis. In terms of mean, it ranked in importance

between the variables for the two previously noted

factors.

Based on their average ratings, the scientists

surveyed generally rate the risks of nanotechnology

substantially lower than the benefits. While the risk

and benefit items are not exactly comparable, mean

ratings for only two of ten risk items are above 3.00

and none is above 4.00, whereas mean ratings for all

seven benefit ratings are above 3.00 and three of the

seven are above 4.00. The two areas of highest

concern were with regard to human health risk and

the potential use of nanotechnology in weapons. In

terms of underlying commonalities between the

variables, the human health risk was closely associ-

ated with animal and environmental risks (a = .92).

All but one of the other variables seemed to tap into a

factor related to social justice (a = .81). Beyond

concern about weapons, the potential for nanotech-

nology to increase the global divide between rich and

poor was deemed by respondents as the most

important risk within this factor, though the average

was still slightly less than 3.00 on the five-point scale.

The risk of increased prices was rated as of relatively

low importance and it did not clearly fit within either

one of the two factors (Table 3).

Beyond risks and benefits, it also seemed relevant

to assess experts’ perspectives on the importance and

J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558 553

123

quality of regulation in areas related to nanotechnol-

ogy research, especially given the current concern at

both federal and state levels with how to adapt the

current regulatory system to cover this new area. The

first group of questions related to the importance of

having regulations. The factor structure of scientists’

responses here was similar to that reported for their

responses on perceived risks. As might be expected,

respondents see a need for regulation most clearly in

those areas where they see the most risk, including

issues related to human and animal health and

protection of the natural environment. The variables

for the questions assessing attitudes on these issues

were highly inter-correlated (a = .95). For all three

variables, more than 50% of respondents reported

that regulation was ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘very important.’’

The social justice-oriented variables were also highly

inter-correlated (a = .95), with weapons regulation

Table 1 ‘‘How important do you believe each of [the following] is to current nanotechnology research and development?’’ (Rated on

a 5-point scale.)

N Mean SD Not (1)

(%)

Low (2)

(%)

Neut. (3)

(%)

Imp. (4)

(%)

Very (5)

(%)

Health and biology importance

Targeted drug delivery 177 3.43 1.22 6.8 17.5 25.4 26.6 23.7

Modifying viruses 176 3.19 1.10 7.4 17.0 36.4 27.3 11.9

Protein engineering 175 3.43 1.10 5.7 14.9 25.7 37.7 16.0

DNA manipulation 175 3.42 1.13 4.6 18.9 25.1 33.1 18.3

Organic fluorescent markers 175 3.13 1.11 8.0 21.7 30.3 29.7 10.3

Factor mean 174 16.58 4.65

Technological importance

Carbon nanotubes/Bucky tubes 177 3.79 1.11 4.0 8.5 25.4 29.4 32.8

Quantum dots 176 3.85 1.13 5.1 6.3 23.3 29.5 35.8

Factor mean 176 7.64 2.10

Shared variables

Computer circuitry 175 3.59 1.125 6.3 9.7 24.6 37.1 22.3

Chemical sensors 176 3.54 1.089 5.7 9.1 31.3 33.5 20.5

Table 2 ‘‘How important do you believe nanotechnology’s benefits will be for society over the next 20 years in each of the

following areas?’’ (Rated on a 5-point scale.)

N Mean SD Not (1) Low (2) Neut. (3) Imp. (4) Very (5)

Environmental benefits

Agriculture and food benefit 175 3.40 1.04 5.7 12.0 31.4 38.3 12.6

Environmental clean-up benefit 175 3.43 1.13 6.3 13.7 27.4 35.4 17.1

Natural resource conservation benefit 174 3.04 1.16 12.6 16.7 34.5 26.4 9.8

Factor mean 172 9.89 2.89

Health and technological benefits

Medicine and health benefit 174 4.32 .96 2.3 4.0 9.2 28.7 54.8

New material development benefit 176 4.40 .93 2.8 1.1 10.2 24.4 61.4

Improved electronics and computing capability benefit 176 4.32 .97 4.0 1.7 6.8 33.5 54.0

Factor mean 174 13.02 2.40

Shared variable

Energy production benefit 176 3.63 1.15 5.7 12.5 19.9 36.9 25.0

554 J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558

123

and privacy protection emerging as areas where

scientists saw the most need for regulation. The area

where scientists saw the least need for direct

government intervention was with regard to job loss.

As above, the variable assessing regulation to manage

potential increased costs could have fit within either

of the factors. It was therefore not included in either

of the composite variables (Table 4).

While two factors emerged when asked about the

importance of regulation, scientists’ views about the

adequacy of current regulations were consistent

across issue areas. All eight questions fell into the

same factor to create a factor with high internal

validity (a = .94). Also, for all eight variables, the

average rating was below the scale mid-point. This

may suggest that nano-researchers believe that, on

Table 3 ‘‘How important do you believe nanotechnology’s risks will be for society over the next 20 years in each of the following

areas?’’ (Rated on a 5-point scale.)

N Mean SD Not (1) Low (2) Neut. (3) Imp. (4) Very (5)

Health and environmental risks

Human health risk 176 3.26 1.27 11.4 17.6 23.3 29.0 18.8

Animal health risk 176 2.98 1.30 16.5 21.0 25.6 22.2 14.8

Environmental pollution risk 176 3.00 1.26 13.6 23.2 26.6 22.0 14.1

Factor mean 9.24 3.56

Social risks

Rich/poor country divide risk 175 2.92 1.28 18.3 18.3 28.6 22.9 12.0

Privacy issues risk 175 2.76 1.26 21.7 18.6 31.4 17.7 10.3

Distribution of benefits risk 172 2.58 1.16 23.3 21.5 34.9 14.5 5.8

Use in weapons risk 176 3.34 1.22 9.7 14.8 27.3 29.0 19.3

Loss of jobs risk 175 2.22 1.09 32.0 29.1 28.0 6.9 4.0

Factor mean 170 13.74 4.57

Shared variable

Increased expense of health care, food, energy, goods, etc. 176 2.51 1.17 24.4 26.1 28.4 15.9 5.1

Table 4 ‘‘How important do you believe it is to have regulations to control nanotechnology’s risk in each of the following areas?’’

(Rated on a 5-point scale.)

N Mean SD Not (1) Low (2) Neut. (3) Imp. (4) Very (5)

Health and environmental regulation

Human health regulation 170 3.85 1.16 5.3 9.4 14.7 35.9 34.7

Animal health regulation 170 3.52 1.24 7.6 13.5 25.3 26.5 27.1

Environmental regulation 169 3.72 1.16 5.3 10.1 22.5 32.5 30.2

Factor mean 169 11.07 3.37

Social regulation

Privacy issues regulation 169 3.05 1.375 18.9 16.0 25.4 20.7 18.9

Distribution of benefits regulation 169 2.66 1.300 26.6 17.2 30.2 16.0 10.1

Use in weapons regulation 170 3.35 1.441 15.9 13.5 20.6 19.4 30.6

Loss of jobs regulation 169 2.42 1.213 30.2 21.9 30.2 11.2 6.5

Factor mean 165 11.39 4.49

Shared variable

Increased expense of health care, food,

energy, goods, etc. regulation

169 2.91 1.331 30.2 21.9 30.2 11.2 6.5

J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558 555

123

average, current regulations are inadequate. Health

(human and animal), environmental, and privacy

concerns were seen as the areas with the least

adequate regulations, but not by a wide margin

(Table 5).

A number of interesting relationships also

emerged when looking at the relationships between

the factors created by our factor analyses (Table 6).

In particular, as would be expected, those who saw

nanotechnology as important also responded that they

saw more benefits. The ‘‘Health and Biology Impor-

tance’’ factor from Table 1 was positively associated

with the ‘‘Environmental Benefits’’ and ‘‘Health and

Technological Benefits’’ factors from Table 2. The

‘‘Technology Importance’’ variable from Table 1 was

also positively associated with ‘‘Environmental Ben-

efits’’ and ‘‘Health and Technological Benefits’’ from

Table 2. Perceived ‘‘Environmental Benefits’’ were

related to an increased perception of ‘‘Social Risk.’’

There was no substantial relationship between per-

ceived benefits and need for regulation. However,

‘‘Health and Technological Benefits’’ were positively

related to the adequacy of existing regulations.

Risk perceptions were also linked to the perceived

importance and adequacy of regulation. ‘‘Health and

Environmental Risk’’ perceptions were highly asso-

ciated with both a perceived need for ‘‘Health and

Environmental Regulation,’’ as well as a smaller

relationship with perceived need for ‘‘Social Regu-

lation.’’ Similarly, perceived ‘‘Social Risk’’ was

highly linked to perceived need for ‘‘Social Regula-

tion,’’ with a smaller relationship to need for ‘‘Health

and Environmental Regulation.’’ Both ‘‘Health and

Environmental Risk’’ and ‘‘Social Risk’’ were nega-

tively associated with perceived adequacy of current

regulation. Perceived need for ‘‘Health and Environ-

mental Regulation’’ and ‘‘Social Regulation’’ were

also negatively related to perceptions of the adequacy

of current regulation.

Looking at demographics—such as degree area

and when respondents received their degree—

revealed several additional relationships worth not-

ing. In looking at the types of degrees held by

respondents, it was clear that those involved in

physics and chemistry saw much less ‘‘Health and

Environmental Risk’’ and ‘‘Social Risk.’’ Such

researchers also saw less need for ‘‘Social Regula-

tion.’’ Conversely, those in the sample with a focus

on social science or a humanities-oriented research

saw more ‘‘Social Risk’’ and more need for ‘‘Social

Regulation.’’

Self-identification as working in either biological

sciences or engineering was unrelated to any of the

factors discussed above. The year in which respon-

dents reported receiving the degree was also

unrelated to any of the created variables.

Discussion

The scientists surveyed for this study reported that

they expect a wide range of nanotechnologies will

likely prove important in the years ahead in a range of

areas. Quantum dots and nanotubes emerged as the

technologies perceived most likely to be important in

coming years, but there also appears to be substantial

Table 5 ‘‘How adequate do you believe current US regulations are for controlling nanotechnology’s risks in each of the following

areas?’’ (Rated on a 5-point scale.)

N Mean SD Not

adq. (1)

(2) (3) (4) More than

adq. (5)

Adequacy of regulation

Human health regulation 169 2.68 1.16 19.5 24.4 29.6 21.9 4.7

Animal health regulation 169 2.66 1.14 20.1 21.9 34.9 17.8 5.3

Environmental regulation 169 2.55 1.14 20.7 30.2 27.8 16.0 5.3

Increased expense regulation 168 2.76 1.20 19.6 17.9 38.1 15.5 8.9

Privacy regulation 169 2.65 1.22 22.5 21.9 32.0 15.4 8.3

Benefit distribution regulation 169 2.85 1.21 18.3 16.0 39.1 16.0 10.7

Weapons regulation 169 2.76 1.26 20.7 21.3 29.6 17.8 10.7

Jobs regulation 166 2.91 1.21 16.9 15.7 38.6 17.5 11.4

Factor mean 165 21.87 7.99

556 J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558

123

hope that nanotechnology research will enable

advances in areas ranging from computing to health

care delivery. Such optimism may be both expected

and self-serving, but it also emphasizes the excite-

ment of those in the field for a broad range of

applications. It is also noteworthy that the survey

points to the existence of a substantial number of

researchers—lead authors who are actively involved

in nanotechnological research—who see little impor-

tance and few benefits for some specific technologies

or areas of research.

Also, while health and technological benefits were

identified as more important than environmental

benefits, health and technology are areas that tend

to receive substantial funding and, in consequence,

likely produce the most publications. This emphasis

on the health and technological benefits may there-

fore reflect the areas in which the respondents are

themselves working.

When it came to risks, only two of the issues

assessed here had an average greater than the mid-

point of the possible range, but, again, substantial

numbers agreed (or strongly agreed) that nanotech-

nology risks would likely prove important in the

years ahead. While the mean was low, less than a

third were willing to say that health risks would be

unimportant and less than a quarter said that they saw

the potential risk of nanotechnology use in weapons

as unimportant. These results suggest that, even

within the nanotechnology community, substantial

concern exists alongside optimism.

With regard to uncertainty, it also seems notewor-

thy that between a quarter and a third of respondents

provided a neutral response when asked most of the

questions described above. The only area where there

was broad, optimistic agreement was in regards to the

potential benefits of nanotechnology for health-care

delivery, as well as for materials development,

computing, and energy production.

The factor analytic component of the current study

also highlights the structure of views about nano-

technology risk. Respondents differentiated between

traditionally recognized health and environmental

risks and risks linked to issues of social justice. The

correlational results further show that perceiving such

‘‘non-traditional’’ social justice risks is highly related

to a sense that it is important to address these non-

traditional risks through regulation.

With regard to regulations, it appears that many of

the scientists involved see a need to appropriately

manage potential risks. The priority for regulation

seems to be in the areas of health and environmental

regulation, with scientists also indicating that current

regulations in these areas may not be adequate. The

fact that a substantial number of active nanotech-

nology researchers feel that regulations are both

Table 6 Correlations between nanotechnology factors

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Health and bio. importance (1)

Tech. importance (2) .49

Env. benefits (3) .33 .26

Health and tech. benefits (4) .38 .47 .51

Health and env. risk (5) .15

Social risks (6) .16 .51

Health and env. regs. (7) .61 .36

Social regs. (8) .33 .62 .55

Adequacy of regs. (9) -.31 -.25 .45 .41

Physics and chemistry -.26 -.18 -.17

Biological sciences

Engineering

Social science/humanities .19 .16

All correlations would be significant at .05 or higher, if treated as a sample, rather than a census

Pairwise deletion (N = 160–177)

J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558 557

123

important and less than adequate is worth underscor-

ing. Given the current hodgepodge of regulation in

the US (Berube 2006; Mills 2006), these results may

provide support to those who hope regulators will

devote adequate resources to addressing potential

downsides of nanotechnology. Of course, the need for

regulation does not take away from the benefits that

the survey respondents also highlighted and, given

their identity as leading researchers, are seeking to

achieve.

Future research should seek to compare the

responses of experts to samples of other Americans.

This could include, for example, citizens who have

spent time learning and deliberating about nanotech-

nology with experts (e.g., Toumey 2006) as well as

samples drawn from the general population. Doing

such follow-up research would allow exploration of

the degree to which experts and non-experts think

about nanotechnology in similar and different ways,

both in terms of risks and benefits and in terms of

priorities for regulation.

Acknowledgments This research is based upon work

supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant

No. 0531160. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or

recommendations expressed in this study are those of the

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National

Science Foundation.

References

Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology.

J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–570

Barnett J, Carr A, Clift A (2006) Going public: risk, trust, and

public understanding of nanotechnologies. In: Hunt G,

Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics, and law.

Earthscan, London, pp 167–179

Berube DM (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nano-

technology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst

Besley JC, Shanahan J (2005) Media attention and exposure in

relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Sci

Commun 26(4):347–367

Cobb MD (2005) Framing effects on public opinion about

nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):221–239

Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about

nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust. J Nanopart Res

6(4):395–405

Doble J (1995) Public opinion about issues characterized

by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty.

Public Underst Sci 4(1):95–118

Einsiedel EF, Goldenberg L (2006) Dwarfing the social?

Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. In:

Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics, and

law. Earthscan, London, pp 213–221

Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H,

Hampel J et al (2004) GM foods and the misperception of

risk perception. Risk Anal 24(1):185–194

Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining

nanotechnology: cultural support for technological inno-

vation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci

14(1):81–90

Georghiou L (1996) The UK technology foresight programme.

Futures 28(4):359–377

Gorss JB, Lewenstein BV (2005) The salience of small: nano-

technology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International

Communication Association

Gunter B, Kinderlerer J, Beyleveld D (1999) The media and

public understanding of biotechnology: a survey of sci-

entists and journalists. Sci Commun 20(4):373–394

Joss S, Belluci S (eds) (2002) Participatory technology

assessment: European perspectives. Athenaeum Press/

Centre for the Study of Democracy, Gateshead

Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes

toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive

effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward

nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267

Macnaugthen P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnol-

ogy, governance, and public deliberation: what role for

the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268–291

Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning

and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–241

Mills K (2006) Nanotechnologies and society in the USA.

In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics,

and law. Earthscan, London, pp 74–91

Nisbet MC, Lewenstein BV (2002) Biotechnology and the

American media: the policy process and the elite press,

1970–1999. Sci Commun 23(4):359–391

Priest S (2006) The North American opinion climate for

nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and chal-

lenges. J Nanopart Res 8:563–568

Priest SH, Gillespie AW (2000) Seeds of discontent: expert

opinion, mass media messages, and the public image of

agricultural biotechnology. Sci Eng Ethics 6(4):529–539

Priest SH, Bonfadelli H, Rusanen M (2003) The ‘‘trust gap’’

hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across

national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Anal

23(4):751–766

Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and

nanotechology: how citizens make sense of emerging

technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–657

Shanahan J, Scheufele D, Lee E (2001) The polls-trends:

attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically

modified organisms. Public Opin Q 65(2):267–281

Siegriest M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wick A (2007)

Laypeople’s and experts’ perceptions of nanotechnology

hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–69

Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major

US and non-US newspapers. Sci Commun 27(2):175–199

Toumey C (2006) Science and democracy. Nature Nanotechnol

1(1):6–7

558 J Nanopart Res (2008) 10:549–558

123