NSF Awardees Meeting 2009© Berube December 9, 2009 – Arlington, VA PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS David M. Berube Professor of Science Communication, STS, and CRDM (Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media), North Carolina State University Director: NCSU Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCOST) Project/Center/Institute. CEO, Center for Converging Technologies, LLC – social media consultancy (trade assns and food industry). PI: NSF NIRT #0809470 – Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement, 2007-2011 http://pcost.org NSF Awardees Meeting 2009© Berube December 9, 2009 – Arlington, VA

Flattened interest, see Kahan, Scheufele, Satterfield, and Berube. REVIEW Cultural worldview theories, see Kahan et al. Ideological associations between perceptions on safety and who and how to regulate (new data). Religiosity theories, see Scheufele et al. Beliefs linked to perceptions (new data). Familiarity hypothesis – linking perception to familiarity; deficit theory revisited. Flattened interest, see Kahan, Scheufele, Satterfield, and Berube.

PERCEIVED -RISKS OF NANO: AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS? Hart 2007

FAMILIARITY HYPOTHESIS Effect tends to be minor and may be a reporting anomaly. Overclaims abound. Opinion surveys are weak instruments to validate hypothesis (Kahan). Familiarity is highly dependent on framing (self-reported awareness). Sources (incl. opinion leaders) and trust are changing (new data). Familiarity hypothesis is generally false (Brossard & Nisbet, 2007). Interest leads to information seeking behavior more than reverse. Link between knowledge/familiarity/ awareness and attitudes seems to be false (Nisbet, Brossard & Kroepsch, 2003) and (Cacciatore, Scheufele & Corley, forthcoming).

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE (DYNAMICS) ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES USA (3 yr span) 2004: Cobb/ Macoubrie 2005a: Einsiedel 2005b: Macoubrie : Hart : Kahan IRGC, 2009 5

Bad data. Asking the wrong questions. SPECULATION Bad data. Asking the wrong questions. Time frame meaningless. Ex: getting information from two points on the same curve. Public interest maxed out. Wrong sampling (7% solution). Wrong methodologies (experimental design vs. opinion sampling).

MOVE TO CRITICAL CASE STUDIES Public interest in science/tech policy. Traditionally low (7-10%). Likely to be case/region specific. Competing interests (unemployment, economy, wars….) Critical case studies- hold strategic importance to issues. Experimental design (Kahan).

Satterfield et al, 2009 (Nature Nano) How can we tag perception levels when studies have such high variances? (Satterfield, 2009) Should we tighten the samples? Should we stop priming the samples? Do engagement exercises involving artificial settings provide useful data sets? Should we privilege the longitudinal data sets (Hart, 2006-08)?

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES (HART 06-08) Unaided Evaluation - General

Expert Delphi Study (NCSU) BERUBE et al. NEW DATA (2009) Nanoparticle toxicity, Potentially problematic uses, Potentially problematic applications, Estimations of public perceptions of risk. Dillman National Public Survey (w U South Carolina, N=307) Impressions of nano and synthetic bio (non-framed), General risk levels (Slovic), Concerns of nanoparticle risks, Perceptions of expert ratings of risk, Sources and use of various media for risk info Trust Social media sources, Demographics Religion Ideology.

PRIMING Priming: prompting of a cognitive stimulus which may create or influence reactions to future stimuli. For example: “How much did you know about nanotechnology before participating?” 1 = Almost nothing 2 = A little 3 = Quite a bit 4 = A great deal (XXX, 2006)

UNPRIMED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA “What comes to mind when you hear the word “nanotechnology”? “Very very small subject matter- beyond microscopic.” “Cutting edge research and technology that has made products smaller, faster, lighter, and stronger.” “I actually don’t have the slightest idea, but I’m going to take a guess and say that it would be the smallest pieces of technological machines that can be made.”

KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA EXPERT – HYPOTHETICAL EXPERT VIEW OF PUBLIC EXPERTS: which current and predictably future products involving the applications of nanoparticles are potentially or actually problematic to EHS? PUBLIC: If experts were asked which potential or actual uses of nanoparticles most concerned the public, how do you think they would rate the public’s concerns? Rank Public: Top 5 Applications 1 Medicine 2 Pesticides 3 Food Additives 4 Anti-microbial treatments 5 Food Packaging Rank Experts: Top 5 applications 1 Cosmetics 2 Fuel additives 3 Anti-microbial clothing 4 Toys and baby products 5 Pesticides

KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA EXPERT HYPOTHETICAL PUBLIC - ACTUAL PUBLIC PUBLIC: how concerned are you about risk to health and safety of the following potential or actual uses of nanoparticles as a component of each of the following (on a 7-item scale). EXPERTS: What applications or products do you assume the public believes is potentially or actually problematic (using ordinal rankings)? Rank Top 5 Applications 1 Cosmetics 2 Food additives 3 Sunscreens 4 All CNTs 5 Nanobots Rank Top 5 Applications 1 Food additives 2 Pesticides 3 Drugs 4 Food packaging 5 Water treatment FOOD

PUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES AND TRUST HEALTH AND SAFETY PUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES AND TRUST PUBLIC: Which sources are you most likely to turn to FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as probably would or more)? Rank Top 5 EHS sources for info about risks 1 Doctors and health professionals (73%) 2 University researchers (41%) 3 Family members 4 Friends and acquaintances 5 Industrial researchers “Religious leaders” 2nd to last ahead of “Elected representatives”. “Industrial scientists” were deemed more trustworthy than “NGOs”.

2 1

HEALTH AND SAFETY SOURCES INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA (Web 2.0) Which internet sources do you use FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as one a week or more)? How often do you use the following media sources FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as once a day or more)? Rank Top Web 2.0 internet sources 1 News accumulators (27%) 2 Personal accumulators (21%) 3 Health Blogs 4 Social networking sites 5 Wikis Rank Media sources 1 Television (59%) 2 Internet (44%) 3 Radio 4 Newspapers

COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF RISKS HEALTH AND SAFETY COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF RISKS Slovic 1994/Berube 2009 Top 3 – street drugs, cigarette smoking, and AIDS. Weighted Ranking - 18/24 risks. Behind: stress, motor vehicle accidents, cloning, sun tanning, pesticide residues on foods, coal and oil burning plants, radon… 52.8% - SLIGHT to NO risk. 74.6% - MODERATE to NO risk. Only 13.0% - HIGH health risk (only higher than X-Rays cell phones, transfusions, and air travel) and less risky than storms and floods.

THANKS dmberube@ncsu.edu COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA 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. NCSU, U Wisconsin, U Minnesota, U South Carolina, & Rice U. (6 grad. students). NSF Awardees Meeting 2009© Berube December 9, 2009 – Arlington, VA THANKS dmberube@ncsu.edu