Suchergebnisse

This book addresses the interconnections and tensions between technological development, the social benefits and risks of new technology, and the changing political economy of a global world system as they apply to the emerging field of nanotechnologies. The basic premise, developed throughout the volume, is that nanotechnologies have an undertheorized and often invisible social life that begins with their constructed origins and propels them around the globe, across multiple localities, institutions and collaborations, through diverse industries, research labs, and government agencies and

As an emerging domain of risk research, nanotechnologies engender novel research questions, including how new technologies are encountered given different framing and contextual detail. Using data from a recent U.S. national survey of perceived risks (N= 1,100), risk versus benefit framings and the specific social positions from which people encounter or perceive new technologies are explored. Results indicate that vulnerability and attitudes toward environmental justice significantly influenced risk perceptions of nanotechnology as a broad class, while controlling for demographic and affective factors. Comparative analyses of different examples of nanotechnology applications demonstrated heightened ambivalence across acceptability when risk versus benefit information was provided with application descriptions (described in short vignettes as compared to the general category "nanotechnology," absent of risk or benefit information). The acceptability of these nano‐specific vignettes varied significantly in only some cases given indexes of vulnerability and attitudes toward environmental justice. However, experimental narrative analyses, using longer, more comprehensive descriptive passages, show how assessments of risks and benefits are tied to the systematically manipulated psychometric qualities of the application (its invasiveness and controllability), risk messaging from scientists, and the social implications of the technology with regard to justice. The article concludes with discussion of these findings for risk perception research and public policy related to nanotechnology and possibly other emerging technologies.

Abstract
Science and innovation policy in the USA often frame publics as the beneficiaries of new technologies, but little research has yet engaged publics on their views of the innovation system (IS)—the combined efforts of government, industry, and universities to produce and promote new technologies. Based on a national public survey (n = 3,010), we identify three dimensions of public judgments about the IS with public policy implications: (1) US publics hold moderate confidence in the IS to produce benefits for them and to respond to public input; (2) they are slightly more critical of innovation-related environmental harm and the accrual of benefits to large corporations; and (3) they strongly support reforms to ensure safe, responsible, and affordable technological innovation. Multivariate regressions indicate variance of judgments by social location and worldviews, finding equity and justice aspects particularly salient in views on the IS. We discuss implications for innovation policy.

Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are increasingly entering the environment with uncertain consequences including potential ecological effects. Various research communities view differently whether ecotoxicological testing of ENMs should be conducted using environmentally relevant concentrations—where observing outcomes is difficult—versus higher ENM doses, where responses are observable. What exposure conditions are typically used in assessing ENM hazards to populations? What conditions are used to test ecosystem-scale hazards? What is known regarding actual ENMs in the environment, via measurements or modeling simulations? How should exposure conditions, ENM transformation, dose, and body burden be used in interpreting biological and computational findings for assessing risks? These questions were addressed in the context of this critical review. As a result, three main recommendations emerged. First, researchers should improve ecotoxicology of ENMs by choosing test endpoints, duration, and study conditions—including ENM test concentrations—that align with realistic exposure scenarios. Second, testing should proceed via tiers with iterative feedback that informs experiments at other levels of biological organization. Finally, environmental realism in ENM hazard assessments should involve greater coordination among ENM quantitative analysts, exposure modelers, and ecotoxicologists, across government, industry, and academia.