1. NanoMex’ 08 – © Berube 2008 November 5, 2008 – Mexico City Communication Risk to the Public - Seven Guides to Communicating Risk David M. Berube Professor, Department of Communication North Carolina State University Coordinator NCSU Public Communication of Science and Technology Project PI – NSF – NIRT Intuitive Nanotoxicology and Public Engagement - CEINT – Duke University

2. http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/pcost/index.html

3. COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA Teaching risk communication for two decades in CRDM (Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media) doctoral program, NCSU. Written extensively in the rhetoric of emerging technologies, esp. nanotechnology (including NanoHype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. NY: Prometheus Books. 2006. Author of the White Paper on Risk Communication for NNCO, NNI. Consult in risk and crisis communication with trade organizations, marketing groups, and industries.

4. FUNDAMENTALS – 5 BIG LESSONS. 1.The public is non-rational. They are cognitive misers. 2.The public uses mental shortcuts called heuristics to make sense of the world around us. 3.Heuristics produce biases, such as probability neglect. 4.The public is blissfully ignorant in science and technology policy (often by choice). 5.Communicate with them only a.to foster trust through transparency and b.when you need to.

5. 1. 1. Where are people getting their information? 2. 2. Who are the stakeholders and what roles do they play? 3. 3. Who needs to be engaged? 4. 4. What is happening in risk communication research? FOUR AREAS OF RESEARCH

6. 1. NEW DATA ON NET-NEWSERS 1. 1. Data indicates demographics favor net-newsers in the USA (Pew data). 2. 2. Net resources amplify risk messages though they could also attenuate them. 3. 3. Design web resources as digital media NOT as text. 4. 4. Staying on course with the evolving media: Social networking services (SNS), Twitter (micro- blogging), sliver TV, Second Life….

7. 1 2

8. 2. STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT EQUAL. 1. 1.Public is generally disinterested (70%). 2. 2.Public is overwhelmingly disinterested in science and technology policy (90%). 3. 3.Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive. 4. 4.Engagement is not for everyone. 5. 5.Embrace the fact you will never succeed totally.

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

10. 1. 1.Audiences process frames through their own perceptual filters, i.e., audiences use religious beliefs, moral schema, etc. 2. 2.Perceptions are just that – the role of opinion – attitude – perception – behavior. 3. 3.Determine your audience (the 7-10 percent solution). 3. ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES.

11. Elite Audiences Mass Audiences LowHigh Message Exposure Positive Outcomes SCIENCE TELEVISION

12. 4. RISK COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 1. 1.Popular culture is not affecting perception significantly. When enough is enough. Risk has a negative valence. Boomerang effects. 2. 2.Central and peripheral routes (Petty & Cacioppo). Tell stories. Narratology is the game (link to affect heuristic). 3. 3.The role of uncertainty in risk assessment and its effects on public communication. 4. 4.Risk fatigue is real. Findings from health communication (Surrey project).

13. NanoMex’ 08 - © Berube 2008 November 5, 2008 – Mexico City COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 06-595, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement. THANKS dmberube @ncsu.edu