Abstract
Data from 3909 respondents to an Internet survey questionnaire provide the first insights into public perceptions of nanotechnology. Quantitative analysis of statistics about agreement and disagreement with two statements, one positive and the other negative, reveals high levels of enthusiasm for the potential benefits of nanotechnology and little concern about possible dangers. The respondents mentally connect nanotechnology with the space program, nuclear power, and cloning research, but rate it more favorably. In contrast, they do not associate nanotechnology with pseudoscience, despite its imaginative exploitation by science fiction writers. Qualitative analysis of written comments from 598 respondents indicates that many ideas about the value of nanotechnology have entered popular culture, and it provides material for an additional 108 questionnaire items that can be used in future surveys on the topic. The findings of this exploratory study can serve as benchmarks against which to compare results of future research on the evolving status of nanotechnology in society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Bainbridge W.S., 1989. Survey Research: A Computer-Assisted Introduction. Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Bainbridge W.S., 1991. Goals in Space. Suny Press, Albany, New York.
Bainbridge W.S., 2000. Religious ethnography on the World Wide Web. In: Jeffrey K. Hadden and Douglas Cowan. eds. Religion and the Internet. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Bainbridge W.S., 2002. Validity of web-based surveys. In: Orville Vernon Burton. ed. Computing in the Social Sciences and Humanities. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 51-66.
Bainbridge W.S., The future of internet. In: Philip E.N. Howard and Steve Jones. eds. The Internet and American Life. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California (in press).
Best S.J., B. Krueger, C. Hubbard & A. Smith, 2001. An assessment of the generalizability of internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review 19: 131-145.
Department of Commerce, 1999. Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
El Boghdady D., 2002. Ears Wide Shut: Researchers Get Punished for Telemarketers' Crimes. Washington Post, September 8, 2002; p. H1.
Joy B., 2000. Why the Future Doesn't Need Us. Wired, April 2000.
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology), 2000. National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan. White House, Washington, DC.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators-2002. National Science Foundation (NSB 02-01), Arlington, VA.
National Science Foundation, 2000. Women, Minorities, and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2000. National Science Foundation (NSF 00-327), Arlington, VA.
Roco M.C. & R. Tomellini, 2002. Nanotechnology: Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Roco M.C., R.S. Williams & P. Alivisatos, eds., 2000. Nanotechnology Research Directions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Roco M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, eds., 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Siegel R.W., E. Hu & M.C. Roco, eds., 1999. Nanostructure Science and Technology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Witte J.C., L.M. Amoroso & P.E.N. Howard, 2000. Method and representation in Internet-based survey tools: Mobility, community, and cultural identity in Survey 2000, Social Science Computer Review 18(2): 179-195.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sims Bainbridge, W. Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4, 561–570 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022805516652
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022805516652