ILS

I NA

200

9 –

© B

eru

be

2009

Jan

uar

y 21

, 200

9 –

Tu

cso

n

Public Understanding of Emerging Scienceand Technology:

Eight Rules and Three Keysfrom the NanoExperience

David M. Berube

•Professor, Department of Communication

North Carolina State University

•CoordinatorNCSU Public Communication

of Science and Technology Project

•PI – NSF – NIRTIntuitive Nanotoxicology and Public Engagement& CoPI Dietram Scheufele,

UWisc.

•CEINT – Duke University w PI Mark Weisner

THE WHITE PAPERTHE WHITE PAPER

NSF NIRT #0809470 – Applied Nanoscience: NSF NIRT #0809470 – Applied Nanoscience: Public Perception of Risk 2007-2011 (Public Perception of Risk 2007-2011 (http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.htmlhtml).).

Workshop (August 28-29, 2008) Workshop (August 28-29, 2008) http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Deliverhttp://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Deliverables.htmlables.html. . Power Points.Power Points. Streams and Downloads.Streams and Downloads.

THE NIRTTHE NIRT

ResearchResearch Delphi questionnaire (Jan-Mar 2009).Delphi questionnaire (Jan-Mar 2009). Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) w USouth Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) w USouth

Carolina (mirror surveys).Carolina (mirror surveys). Data analysis w UWisc.Data analysis w UWisc. Civic Engagement exercises (assessment) w USC.Civic Engagement exercises (assessment) w USC. Focus Group. (nanofood) w UMinn.Focus Group. (nanofood) w UMinn.

SupplementSupplement History with NSF.History with NSF. Summer 2008 (144 pp.)Summer 2008 (144 pp.)

Train-the-Trainer (12/08; Scheufele, Wisc.)Train-the-Trainer (12/08; Scheufele, Wisc.)

PUBLIC SPHEREPUBLIC SPHERE

OUTREACH

PARTICIPATIONENGAGEMENT

CONSUMERS

Post WWII – conceptualizing the political Post WWII – conceptualizing the political public as consumers.public as consumers.

Eric Hobsbawn (2007) “Participation in the Eric Hobsbawn (2007) “Participation in the market replaces participation in politics; the market replaces participation in politics; the consumer takes the place of the citizen.”consumer takes the place of the citizen.”

CategoriesCategories Organized consumers (consumer movements).Organized consumers (consumer movements). Unorganized consumers (market research Unorganized consumers (market research

institutes).institutes). Actual consumers (derived from purchasing Actual consumers (derived from purchasing

patterns).patterns).

PUBLIC SPHEREAS CONSUMING-CITIZENS OR CITIZEN-CONSUMERS

RULE 1 - STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT EQUAL.

1. Public is generally disinterested in nanoscience (<70%).

2. Public is overwhelmingly disinterested in science and technology policy (<90%).

3. Engagement is not for everyone. Engagement exercises may not produce usable data. Sample size and methodology.

4. Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive.

SCIENCESCIENCE

PUBLIC SCIENCEPUBLIC SCIENCE

IN VIVO ANDIN VIVO ANDEPIDEMIOLOGICALEPIDEMIOLOGICAL

ININVITROVITRO

“real”SCIENCE

1.1. Infinite benefit – Infinite benefit –

2.2. Unfettered research –Unfettered research –

3.3. Accountability – peer-review, open debate.Accountability – peer-review, open debate.

4.4. Authoritativeness – politicians makes Authoritativeness – politicians makes decisions by recourse to the facts;decisions by recourse to the facts;

1.1. Speculation (mesothelioma).Speculation (mesothelioma).

2.2. Scientific self-interest (toxicology).Scientific self-interest (toxicology).

5.5. Endless frontier - Endless frontier -

MYTHS OF PUBLIC SCIENCE(SAREWITZ Frontiers of Illusion ’97)

RULE 2 - STOP TEACHING SCIENCE

1. Deficit theory of science literacy. Self-selected exclusion. Educational reform.

2. Heuristics and biases (the 3-4 As).a. Affect.b. Anchoring or adjustment.c. Availability.

3. Risk has a negative valence. Boomerang effects. Discussing risk increases its negative valence regardless of the subject.

PRODUCTS (2008)PRODUCTS (2008)

HybridMaterials

Coatings

PersonalCare Products

AlternativeEnergy

ConsumerProducts –

Sporting & Textiles

Food additives & packaging

Medicine& Pharmaceuticals

Computers

AppliedAppliednanoscience

PRODUCT QUADRADPRODUCT QUADRAD

Low-hanging fruit Low-hanging fruit is notis not ImaginativeImaginative TransformativeTransformative InspirationalInspirational Nor visionary.Nor visionary.

Profitable and Profitable and quickly so.quickly so.

POTABLEWATER

ALTERNATIVEENERGY

HEALTH ANDMEDICINE

FOOD

ETF

Gartner Hype CycleGartner Hype CycleITIT

RULE 3 – PRODUCTS/APPLICATIONS ARE NOT ALIKE

1. Low-hanging to especially-tasty fruit (a product with coattails).

2. Anchoring theory - the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.

3. Assist entrants and rehabilitate others.

0

+

-

PERCEPTIONPERCEPTION

Amplificationand attenuation

Event

Perception of public perception

Public perception

Group leaders

RULE 4 – ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES

1. Audiences process information through their own perceptual filters, i.e., audiences use religious beliefs, moral schema, etc.

2. Perceptions are just that – the role of opinion – attitude – perception – behavior. Linking perception to behavior is not causal.

3. Determine your audience (the 7-10 percent solution).

TV and Internet News Consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

18-24 25-29 30-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Age Range

% c

on

su

mp

tion

fro

m e

ach

med

ium

TV 1998

TV 2008

WWW 1998

WWW 2008

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, August 2008

RULE 5 - USE DIGITAL MEDIA

1. Data indicates demographics favor net-newsers in the USA (Pew data).

2. Design web resources as digital media NOT as text.

3. Net resources amplify risk messages though they could also attenuate them.

4. Staying on course with the evolving media: Social networking services (SNS), Twitter (micro-blogging), sliver TV, Second Life….

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Loss ofprivacy

Lead to armsrace

Loss of jobs Self-replicating

robots

May be usedby terrorists

New healthproblems

Morepollution

Res

pond

ents

(%)

UnawareAware

PERCEIVED RISKS OF NANO:AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS

HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS?

Hart 2007

01020

30405060

708090

Help cleanup

environment

Bettertreatment ofdiseases

Betternational

security anddefense

Improvehumanabilities

Solve energyproblems

Revolutionizecomputerindustry

Lead toeconomic

boom

Resp

onde

nts (

%)

UnawareAware

PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF NANO:AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS

HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS?

Hart 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Somewhat certainbenefits exceed risks

Believe science isconfident benefits exceed

risks

Pre

Post

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FORUMSRESULTS OF DELIBERATION ON CERTAINTY???

(n = 300/6 locations)

10th Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, Malmo, Sweden , June 2008 and http://cns.asu.edu/files/ and NCTFSummaryReportFinalFormat08.pdf .

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Risks exceedbenefits

Risks equalbenefits

Benefitsexceed risks

No opinion

Pre

Post

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FORUMSRESULT OF DELIBERATIONS ON CONCERN

NBIC (Human Enhancement)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Should avoid Should avoid (strongly)

Pre

Post

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FORUMSRESULT OF DELIBERATIONS

INTERFERING WITH “NATURAL” HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

RULE 6 – IT’S NOT ABOUT AWARENESS

1.1. Public awareness tends to increase fear of Public awareness tends to increase fear of risks and increase appreciation of benefits. risks and increase appreciation of benefits. Endurance issues – longitudinal studies.Endurance issues – longitudinal studies.

2.2. This is a marketing issue and narratology is This is a marketing issue and narratology is the game (link to affect heuristic); coherent the game (link to affect heuristic); coherent stories.stories.

3.3. Selecting the voice and the spokespersons.Selecting the voice and the spokespersons.

LESSONS from Hart and NTFLESSONS from Hart and NTF

Public risk education. Risk has a Public risk education. Risk has a negative valence (check new report). negative valence (check new report).

Awareness may affect perception but…Awareness may affect perception but… Does awareness “significantly” affect Does awareness “significantly” affect

perceptions?perceptions? Does it have “real” or “long-term” effects? Does it have “real” or “long-term” effects? Is it worth the price?Is it worth the price?

NISE AUDIENCES

1. What worries us about the public?a. Public rejects spending? Legislators

suspect public objects to spending?

b. Public will boycott products? c. Public will protest industry?

2. Who should worry us, then?a. Media reports.b. NGO/CAG reports.

RULE 7. ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES.

MEDIA/NGOsMEDIA/NGOs“Consequences count”“Consequences count”

African food aid – African food aid – World Food program; World Food program; 100,000 metric tons; 100,000 metric tons; recipient and transit recipient and transit countries; pre-countries; pre-milling; raises costs, milling; raises costs, hastens storage hastens storage losses, and reduces losses, and reduces the amount of food the amount of food available for available for emergency reliefemergency relief. .

Australian Australian melanoma – melanoma – (Sydney Morning (Sydney Morning Herald) NSW Herald) NSW Cancer Council; Cancer Council; since 1990; risks of since 1990; risks of sun exposure are sun exposure are well documented; well documented; 1600 die each year; 1600 die each year; lives are at risk lives are at risk (JNR FOE-Australia).(JNR FOE-Australia).

1.1. Fear marketing/fear mongering. Fear marketing/fear mongering. a.a. Direct relationship between fear and Direct relationship between fear and

viewership/readership/membership…viewership/readership/membership…

b.b. Rhetorical devicesRhetorical devices1.1. Risk profile shifts.Risk profile shifts.

2.2. Prolepsis and counterfactuals.Prolepsis and counterfactuals.

2.2. Kaplan’s complaint – using Kaplan’s complaint – using nanoscience as a scapegoat for nanoscience as a scapegoat for bigger issues.bigger issues.

RULE 8. ENGAGE THE MEDIA AND NGOs

1. It’s time to re-examine public engagement from in terms of productivity.

2. It’s not a public issue, rather it is a media/NGO issue. It’s all about amplification.

3. It’s a digital world; reading has changed; information flow has shifted.

4. NGOs/CAGs – refutation is important; debunking (starvation in Africa and melanoma in Australia) – misinformation must be countered.

KEY 1 – BUILD STRATEGIES

(Guard dogs & guinea pigs)

KEY 2 - LET GO OF MISCONCEPTIONSRISK ANALYSIS IN HIGH UNCERTAINTY

“We need new approaches to risk studies!”

1. Stop worrying about popular culture.

2. Science education is fine. Gladwell criticisms.

3. Public engagement is expensive and mildly productive. Decide what your goals are.

4. All scientists need to work together (natural and social). Nagging is counterproductive. Need a new era of constructive engagement.

1. Stop using intuition when designing a communication campaigns. Failures are expensive. (esp., trust and anchoring) AND risk fatigue is real.

2. Use data; NO place for pop-communication and PR.

3. Don’t over-extend your expertise. Risk on a dime is not wise. Use communication professionals.

KEY 3 – WHAT TO DO WHEN

COMMUNICATING TO THE PUBLIC

POTABLEWATER

ALTERNATIVEENERGY

MEDICINE

FOOD

ETF

med(Ev1 + Ev2 + … Evn) med(P1 + P2 + … Pn) Risk ← ______________________________________ I T

ALGORITHM & MODELALGORITHM & MODEL Risk communication algorithm.Risk communication algorithm.

Risk communication model.Risk communication model.

Ev = event, P = probability, I = information, and T = trust.

ILS

I NA

200

9 -

© B

eru

be

2009

Ja

nu

ary

21. 2

009

– T

ucs

on

RISK COMMUNICATION AND PUBLICS

This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 06-595, #0809470Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement.

THANKSdmberube@ncsu.edu