1. 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 # – Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement,
NSF Awardees Meeting 2009© Berube
December 9, – Arlington, VA

2. 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.

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

4. 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).

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

6. 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).

7. 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).

8. 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, )?

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

10. 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.

11. 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)

12. 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.”

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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”.

16. 2 1

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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 , 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, – Arlington, VA
THANKS