Nanotechnology 'culture war' possible, study says
December 7th, 2008
Nanowire lasers are one new development of nanotechnology. Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation
Rather than infer that nanotechnology is safe, members of the public who learn about this novel science tend to become sharply polarized along cultural lines, according to a study conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School in collaboration with the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. The report is published online in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.
These findings have important implications for garnering support of the new technology, say the researchers.
The experiment involved a diverse sample of 1,500 Americans, the vast majority of whom were unfamiliar with nanotechnology, a relatively new science that involves the manipulation of particles the size of atoms and that has numerous commercial applications. When shown balanced information about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, study participants became highly divided on its safety compared to a group not shown such information.
The determining factor in how people responded was their cultural values, according to Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor at Yale Law School and lead author of the study. "People who had more individualistic, pro-commerce values, tended to infer that nanotechnology is safe," said Kahan, "while people who are more worried about economic inequality read the same information as implying that nanotechnology is likely to be dangerous."
According to Kahan, this pattern is consistent with studies examining how people's cultural values influence their perceptions of environmental and technological risks generally. "In sum, when they learned about a new technology, people formed reactions to it that matched their views of risks like climate change and nuclear waste disposal," he said.
The study also found that people who have pro-commerce cultural values are more likely to know about nanotechnology than others. "Not surprisingly, people who like technology and believe it isn't bad for the environment tend to learn about new technologies before other people do," said Kahan. "While various opinion polls suggest that familiarity with nanotechnology leads people to believe it is safe, they have been confusing cause with effect."
According to Kahan and other experts, the findings of the experiment highlight the need for public education strategies that consider citizens' predispositions. "There is still plenty of time to develop risk-communication strategies that make it possible for persons of diverse values to understand the best evidence scientists develop on nanotechnology's risks," added Kahan. "The only mistake would be to assume that such strategies aren't necessary."
"The message matters," said David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. "How information about nanotechnology is presented to the vast majority of the public who still know little about it can either make or break this technology. Scientists, the government, and industry generally take a simplistic, 'just the facts' approach to communicating with the public about a new technology. But, this research shows that diverse audiences and groups react to the same information very differently."
Citation: Nature Nanotechnology (Advance Online Publication December 7, 2008)
doi: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.341
Source: Yale University
Feb 11, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
learn to properly MANAGE the nanotechnology that has been going on all the time! Beware the greed
that would carelessly exploit new knowledge!
The left (anti-captialist, anti-trade) has always been the great exploiter and eventually enslaver of the ignorant masses and uses scare tactics to implement their agenda of rule by thuggery. Nanotech should be a cornerstone of US economic development and we should be the world leader but the left, like those Khmer Rouge did will work hard to make the bogeyman out of it.
The nano already being delivered in products is toxic under the right circumstances. An enlightened country/world will closely study and be wary of nano from mining/processing, to manufacture, to consumer use, to disposal. Anything else is pretty stupid and what we will probably see if the right wing has their way is more dead Americans from nano products that are not being monitored or studied for toxicity. We aren't even monitoring or prohibiting the known "nano" poisons that we expose people to every day, like diesel and gasoline emissions, mercury from several sources but mostly burning coal, industrial and consumer plastics that are ubiquitous and mimic estrogen as they leach into our food and water. Farm chemicals that mimic estrogen, or worse, that atrazine that most of us drink in our drinking water can't be removed by water treatment. At .1 ppb it changes 90% of a male frogs testosterone into estrogen via aromatase (Dr. Hayes U.C. Berkley)
Anyone who believes that nano will be properly monitored or even studied for deadly effects on humans is already clearly wrong if we look at the history of the lack of regulation of the current toxins and carcinogens and brain damaging pollutants that we take in every day.
The right wing believes that industry and profit are more important than human life.
Perhaps "one of the great exploiters" would be more accurate. In the US, it's the rabid right that's doing the most to block nanotech, along with stem cell research and any other scientific endeavour that threatens their belief system. I think the key point here is "belief system", which can exist all along the political spectrum wherever people decide to trade in their brains in favour of a set of slogans.
Nanotech is a duel-edged sword, of course. Drexler tried to warn us. The military industrial complexes of the Democracies cannot be trusted with robust and sufficiently advanced nanotechnologies. We already have Predator and Reaper drones with AI and facial recognition. We are bathing in nanoparticles we cannot understand or yet catalogue, such as mycotoxins and the concomitant chemistries of active biological molecules. If we are all so naive about mycotoxins yet to this day, why should even "lay people" trust the Democracies to correctly regulate nanotechnology ? Is this an argument to stop nanotech research ? Of course not, as if that could possibly be accomplished anyway.
Terence McKenna calls our age "the boiling of the pond surface." He also correctly stated that "... in the future, technology will become nanotechnology, and disappear from our physical prescence."
Nature is drawing us like fireflies toward a future with some sort of "strange attractor" that we cannot perceive or define. It is Pandora's box and it cannot be closed.
With the preponderance of ignorance and malice in our world (in our genes and memes), how could Earth not be destroyed by even the most well-meaning Democracies ? Nanotech will advance nanotech, and nanotech will destroy nanotech, to be locked in a dance of death like a supergiant star and it's white dwarf companion.
Anhiliation is inevitable. Let's get our kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.
I smell smoke already. Did in 1995.
Please reread "Engines of Creation." The second half of the book is a guide to harness nanotech while preventing mutual destruction. We should educate ourselves and others to make fine distinctions regarding nanotech, and not let some self-appointed elite drive our species into the grave.
I am cynical but we must have hope.
It is neither good nor bad and is used by all political idiologies for good and bad.
Its like say fire is good or bad.
We can burn someone at the stake or heat our food and homes.
Nuclear tecnology is more advanced yet fundamentaly the same...you can use it to produce cheap clean energy for a city or vaporize the city! Nanotechnology is very advanced...knowledge we can create a heaven on earth or a hell on earth...but there is no escaping it. Lest we bury our heads in the sand and ignore progress and knowledge...while evil embraces it and crushes us. Its better to get in the game and try to mold it for good then to wait and see what happens!
Our only hope will be the genetic mutant cyborgs that South Korea is making.
That's the whole point of the article! It's not "thinking" it's "expressing a cultural viewpoint".
People want more, they want more kids more stuff, with so many people you end up with a choice more technology to keep pace with the rising demand. You feed your doubled population with your genetically modified grain. Sure in good years, with good weather the noble peasant may be a good life. However, in bad years he gets to watch his children starve to death. Premium example ships of grain arrive in African nations to feed those who are starving, the national government refused to let them offload the "poisonous genetically modified grain" I'm sure the emaciated corpses feel much better about not having lived long enough to get cancer in 20 years.