PHOENIX – In the growing debate over regulating nanotechnology – a burgeoning global industry with wide-ranging potential applications – a new study by Arizona State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison reveals that the views of U.S. nanoscientists differ from those of the general public.
Nanotechnology involves controlling matter of an atomic and molecular size to develop devices of an incredibly small scale, usually 100 nanometers or smaller (tiny enough to fit through a surgical mask). The technology is becoming more pervasive, with more than a thousand products ranging from more efficient solar panels and scratch-resistant automobile paint, to souped-up golf clubs already on the market.
Global revenues from products using nanotechnology are estimated to reach $2.8 trillion by 2015, according to Global Industry Analysts Inc.
As reported in the online version of the Journal of Nanoparticle Research, researchers found that the public tends to focus on the benefits – rather than potential environmental and health risks – when making decisions about nanotechnology regulation, whereas scientists mainly focus on potential risks and economic values.
“We think that nanoscientists view regulations as protections for the public, and that’s part of the reason why they focus on the potential risks. On the other hand, the public seems to think of nanotechnology regulations as restricting their access to new products and other beneficial aspects of nanotechnology,” said Elizabeth Corley, Lincoln Professor of Public Policy, Ethics and Emerging Technologies in Arizona State University’s School of Public Affairs, and co-author of the study.
According to the study, leading U.S. scientists in nanotechnology believe regulations are most urgently needed in the areas of surveillance and privacy, human enhancement, medicine and the environment. At the same time, this group feels that other areas, including machines and computers, have little need for further regulation.
Decision makers often rely on the input of scientists when setting policies on nanotechnology because of the high degree of scientific uncertainty, and the lack of data, about its risks, Corley says.
“This difference in the way nanoscientists and the public think about regulations is important for policymakers (to take into consideration) if they are planning to include both groups in the policymaking process for nanotechnology,” said Corley.
The study also reveals an interesting divide within the group of nanoscientists. Economically conservative scientists were less likely to support regulations, while economically liberal scientists were more likely to do so.
“This says less about scientists than it does about the lack of conclusive data about risks related to nanotechnology,” concludes Dietram Scheufele, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and co-author of the study. “Policymakers need to realize that when they ask scientists to give them advice about inconclusive findings, they will get both their professional judgment and their personal views.”
Data for the study came from survey questionnaires filled out by 363 of the most highly cited and most active U.S.-affiliated scientists in the nanotechnology field. The survey, conducted between May and June of 2007, was administered by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center. It was the first nationally representative study of nanoscientists.
To view the complete report, visit http://www.springerlink.com/content/627323076677745q/fulltext.html.
Source: Arizona State University