Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Nanotechnology: Reducing UncertaintySynthesizing Two Views

Grant E. Gardner

Ph.D. Candidate - Science Education

PCOST Associated Member

Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting, Boston, MA

December 10, 2008

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Uncertainty, Knowledge, & Risk Perception

• How do we reduce uncertainty?• Increasing expert knowledge

• Nanotechnology content• Risk factors and hazard likelihoods • Decision-making about risk

• Transfer aspects of that knowledge to the public• Communication & Education

• What can integrated research from communication and education tell us about reducing uncertainty surrounding risk and understanding risk perception of nanotechnology?

• What do we know and where should we go?

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Two Views

• Public Communication of Science & Technology (PCOST) White Paper for the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office (NNCO) - Communicating Risk of Emergent Technology in the 21st Century

• Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) initiative to integrate nanotechnology themes into engineering curriculum• General engineering• Engineering with nanotechnology• Nanotechnology engineering & society

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

When Worlds Collide:Reducing Uncertainty

• Risk communication• Expert: Risk communicator or scientist• Target Audience: General public • Goals - Scientiating/Public understanding of science• Models - Knowledge deficit model• Interventions - Public communication event

• Science education• Expert: Instructor• Target Audience: Students (undergraduate)• Goals - Developing scientific literacy • Models - Knowledge & attitudes• Interventions - Science-technology-society (STS) & socio-scientific

issues (SSI)

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Public Knowledge of Nano

• Knowledge is low and from minimal sources• Attitudes toward nano exist and are framed by benefit

perception• The knowledge-attitude relationship depends on the intervention

and the values attached to the technology

• What is the primary source for nano knowledge in the general public?

• Are attitudes toward a particular tech or toward S&T in general? How do variables need to be specified?

• Can knowledge dissemination keep pace with the speed of technological development?

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Expert Knowledge of Nano

• Knowledge gap between expert and general public exists• Differential interpretations of uncertainty• Uncertainty amplifies perception of risk and promotes

precautionary behavior• Most science experts don’t concern themselves with the risks of

emerging technologies

• How will positive attitudes translate to behavior when nano consumer products become more widespread?

• When it comes to nano, how are we to define the experts?

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Nature of Science

• Science knowledge is not equal to content knowledge• “Local” knowledge versus global knowledge• The nature of uncertainty in science is not well understood

• How successful is education at teaching uncertainty in NOS?

• What is “local” knowledge in nano, because it spans multiple science domains?

• How much knowledge is enough knowledge to sway perceptions? Is there a threshold?

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Nature of Nanotechnology

• Nanotechnology is not a singular technology and does not have a singular class or risks

• Nanotechnology is “small” and difficult to experience• There are no mental models of nanotech

• Can those applications that are considered “less risky” be used effectively in risk communication and introductory education?

• How does this inability to directly experience nano affect attitude formation?

• What is the efficacy of previous emergent tech to understanding nano?

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Tab le 3 Risk and Benefit Ranking Profiles

Risk Mean Benefit Mean Ranking Score Ranking Score

Bullets 3.28 Tumor I rrad. 4.53 Med. Nanobots 2.83 Med. Release 4.43 Fuel Storage 2.79 Med. Nanobots 4.30 Tumor I rrad. 2.67 Build. Materials 4.21 Med. Release 2.57 Water Filters 4.21 Antibiotic Food 2.41 Data Chips 4.14 Product Track. 2.34 Fuel Storage 4.06 Sunscreen 2.31 Antibiotic Food 3.88 Water Filters 2.25 Freshness Sens. 3.65 Freshness Sens. 2.11 Sunscreen 3.62 Build. Materials 2.04 Product Tracking 2.82 Data Chips 1.75 Bullets 2.81 Note: Response options ranged from 1 = no risk or benefit to 5 = very high risk or benefit

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Changing Perceptions

• Risk perception is resistant to change. Benefit perception may not be.

• Public engagement has limitations often not seen in formal education

• Know your audience (motivation, concerns, etc.)

• How can each of these venues inform each other about public acceptance?

• How do audiences differ?

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Table 2 How do students' perceptions of nanotechnology change following three different types of instruction? Pre-Survey Post-Survey Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Difference t p General Engineering (n = 36) Risk Perception 2.45(.43) 2.37(.54) -0.08 0.85 .399 Benefit Perception 3.82(.48) 3.96(.62) 0.14 -1.41 .167 Engineering w/ Nanotechnology (n = 55) Risk Perception 2.50(.43) 2.47(.54) -0.03 0.34 .734 Benefit Perception 3.78(.45) 3.75(.52) -0.03 0.46 .651 Nanotechnology in Engineering & Society (n = 11) Risk Perception 2.86(.63) 2.52(.47) -0.34 1.53 .156 Benefit Perception 3.28(.33) 3.70(.59) 0.42 -2.33 .042 * Note: Response options ranged from 1 = no risk or benefit to 5 = very high risk or benefit

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Decision-Making About Risk

• Increase knowledge does not increase decision-making ability• Uncertainty breed reliance on heuristics and biases• Affect, anchoring & adjustment, availability heuristics

• How much does knowledge affect not just attitudes but decision making?

• What are the roles of trust, fear, and belief in mediating perceptual-based decision-making?

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Funding

• 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

• http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.html

• NSF 0634222: Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) - Teaching Nanoscale Engineering Across Undergraduate Disciplines

• Thanks to:

• Dr. David M. Berube - Communication Dept. NCSU• Dr. M. Gail Jones - Science Education Dept. NCSU

Nano: Reducing Uncertainty

SRA 2009Boston, MA

Thank You!

Grant E. Gardner

North Carolina State University

Department of Science Education

gegardne@ncsu.edu