Jump to a section...

• Applied Nanoscience Intro
• Intuitive Toxicology & Risk Perceptions
  • Sources & Trust
    • Research Questions
• Stage One: Instruments
  • Stage Two: Delphi Rounds
    • Stage Three Civic Engagement
      • Stage Four: Focus Groups
        • Stage Five: Findings & Outreach
• Study Outcomes
  • Data Sets
    • Importance of Data
• Dissemination of Findings
  • Public Engagement & Education
    • USC Citizen's School
      • Educational Opportunities
        • Minority Population Outreach
• Management and Research Teams
• References

Applied Nanoscience: Public Perception of Risk

Nanotechnology has demonstrated great promise in many areas including future fuels, electronics, and biomedicine. For government and industry to continue to research and develop new products, the public will need to support government spending, buy consumer products, and feel safe doing so. Teams of stakeholders, including regulators, industry, academia, and others, will need to be in the forefront of efforts to communicate risk information about applied nanoscience.

One of the major hurtles encountered in communicating risk of applied nanoscience will involve resolving associated toxicological challenges. There is a growing body of research investigating the toxicity associated with exposure to nanomaterials through inhalation, dermal absorption, gastro-intestinal and other routes. Recent works suggest that nanoparticles may be problematic in terms of lesions in the lung and transportation of particles to other parts of the body where free radicals may cause additional problems. There is even some evidence suggesting topically applied nanoparticles might pass through the dermis and affect the circulatory and lymphatic systems. In addition, nanoparticles present in lower life forms may be biomagnified via the food chain.

As such, we realize that a better understanding of how to communicate with the public and how to enhance their understanding of concerns about the toxicity of nanoparticles is called for, especially given apprehensions expressed by many critics that should a nano-product prove dangerous, a contagion phenomenon may occur that sours consumer interest in other nanoproducts. Justified or not, a crisis of this sort could be amplified by the media and even some public interest groups which might threaten continuing public financial and government support for research and development in applied nanoscience.

Since the recent recognition of nanotechnology as an emerging field, few studies have been initiated that assess public perception of risk of exposure to nanoparticles. The window of opportunity remaining for risk communicators to engage the public is closing quickly as nanobased products are marched out onto the market. We know that risk and benefit judgments have been found to be more strongly negatively correlated when there is limited time for risk communication to take place (Finucane 2001). As such, it will be advantageous to provide opportunities and methodologies to facilitate public engagement, sensibly and soon.

Intuitive Toxicology and Risk Perception: Experts versus Non-experts

Intuitive toxicology, hereafter referred to as ITOX, is much more than a clever term. It refers to how an inexpert or lay audience comprehends and reacts differently to expert information, in this case quantitative nanotoxicology data. A majority of studies document differences between expert and public risk perception (Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein 1980, Slovic 1987, Kraus, et al 1993, & Slovic et al 1995). These data reveal that the public ranks some risks higher than experts, such as chemical products (Kraus, Malmfors, & Slovic 1992 and Slovic et al 1995), radioactive waste disposal (Kletz 1996), spray cans (Slovic 1987), and biotechnology (Savadori 2004). Other risks are perceived to be smaller in comparison to experts, including X-rays (Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein 1979 & Slovic 1987), downhill skiing (Savadori, Rumiati, & Bonini 1998), and riding bicycles (Slovic 1987). It is worth mentioning that exaggerated risk seems to be dependent on route of exposure, as was the case for biotechnology involved in food related rather than medicinal applications.

There are numerous factors that contribute to the disagreement in risk perception between experts and non-experts. A primary consideration is that experts rationalize hazards against dosage and exposure whereas the public does not. For example, “[t]he public would have more of an all or none view of toxicity… [T]hey appear to equate even small exposures to toxic or carcinogenic chemicals with almost certain harm” (Kraus, Malmfors & Slovic 1992, pp. 217 & 228) despite well-documented evidence to the contrary in the case of some chemicals.
Disagreement is also prompted by the open ended nature of scientific claims. Science is almost never definitive and realistically, most citizens do not have access to scientific information upon which to make risk decisions, while others do not have the inclination. Knowledge building often involves legalistic and technocratic debates over findings and this may be disadvantageous to public groups by increasing confusion, engendering panic, etc. Furthermore, the public has less trust in experts associated with industry than those associated with academia. The public believes experts may know less than they claim and may be corrupt due to their being hired by the industry or government. In addition, it may be perceived that those who are primarily involved in an activity associated with a risk, like science, may rate it lower (Sjöberg 2002). The public also notices that experts disagree and this generates uncertainty. While the public tends to use trust to compensate for their lack of technical understanding of risk issues (Jenkins-Smith & Silva, 1998), this becomes problematic with expert generated uncertainty.

The public also appears to be more concerned with consequences, while experts rely on probability. For example, events associated with mortality or morbidity occurring within a few days, and thus more noticeable, are assumed more risky than the same or more instances spread over a longer period of time.

To add another level of complexity, “…merely mentioning the possible adverse consequences (no matter how rare) of some product or activity could enhance their perceived likelihood and make them appear more frightening” (Slovic 1986, p. 405) such as what occurred with high voltage lines and cellular telephones. Consequently, “many risk communications about chemical exposure may lead more often to confusion or heightened concerns, when it is actually intended to reduce concerns” (MacGregor, Slovic & Malmfors, p. 654). This becomes increasingly problematic as experts respond with more and improved risk assessment studies. Altogether, disagreement of risk between experts and non-experts increases uncertainty (Kajanne & Pirttilä-Backman 1999) and uncertainty impacts trust. The problem for experts, regulators, business and industry, and policy makers is that the public appears to use a complex calculus based on a matrix of attitude and beliefs (values) to decide risk issues, and this calculus does not correspond to the risk assessment methodology employed by experts.

However, once we establish some baseline data and employ a series of models that take full advantage of risk perception research on nanotechnology, we will be able to better understand the phenomena at play and may be able to build communication algorithms that are more amenable to all parties involved. Given that one of the first hurtles confronting the nation in applied nanoscience involves human and ecological toxicity, we must develop a procedure or set of procedures that will help the public to decide whether the nascent industry is acting in the public’s interest, and this may include more creative and sustained efforts toward public inclusion.

back to top

On Sources and Trust: New Media

A particularly important research topic related to public risk perception and nanotoxicology is the role of the “new media” in communicating and establishing trust in information about risk.

Savadori et al (2004) indicated that newspapers and TV are among the most trusted sources of information (in Italy) about food-related hazards, followed by medical sources, the government, friends, industry, magazines and radio, university scientists and consumer organizations. On the other hand, Savadori et al also found newspapers and TV were frequently cited as mistrusted sources (see also Frewer, Howard, Hedderly & Shepherd 1996). Credibility is important to both trust and risk perception and it has been discovered repeatedly that a high credibility of information sources is inversely correlated to risk perception (Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic & Johnson 2000).

While many variables can amplify and attenuate risk messages, most of the focus has been on media (Pidgeon, Kasperson & Slovic, 2003, Kasperson et al, 1988). The media (including movie and television drama) has been the primary scapegoat when it comes to risk policy dilemmas, partly because of the way it can spread bad news in a manner that destroys trust. The media may even be able to generate risk cascades. Sunstein (2001) discusses availability cascades, describing how events become available to large numbers of people from media coverage and group membership. This can lead to moral panics whereby large numbers perceive sources of danger far out of proportion such as “dissidents, foreigners, immigrants, homosexuals, teenage gangs” (p. 98), etc.

We have already seen the media interest in negative events associated with nano-products, such as the Magic Nano debacle, the waste treatment concerns associated with Samsung’s NanoSilver washers, the ICTA and FOE’s petition to the FDA, etc. The media can both amplify and attenuate technological events. They have demonstrated a propensity for exaggeration and hyperbole as a means for increasing readership and viewership. Depending on the media to portray objective risk information associated with nanotechnology may be a fool’s game, and this difficult situation may be further complicated by the tremendous changes in the media over the last decade.

Emerging news sources related to radio, internet, and TV are referred to here as “new media”. They seem to be here to stay and while the power of the voices of bloggers may be exaggerated at times, the combined voices of wikipedia, blogs (written and video), podcasts (audio and video), and IPTV (You Tube) are affecting how news information is communicated to the public. While traditional media, such as newspapers and TV stations, have added web-based adjuncts, those tend to emphasize standard format and are used to emphasize published or broadcasted features and some current events. Digital versions of newspapers and mpeg4 rebroadcasts of news shows seem to be the current model.

A Pew Internet and American Life project estimated 11 percent (or 50 million) of Internet users are blog readers. Calacanis of Weblogs predicted by 2009, 50 percent of the country will be blogging. Perseus Development Corporation reported while today only 3 percent of Internet users read them daily, among the young (18-29) that percentage increases dramatically to 44 percent (McGann 2004). While the podcast base is currently 4.5 million, it will grow to 60 million by 2011. eMarketer estimated there will be 3 million active podcast listeners by the end of 2006 and 7.5 million by 2008. Diffusion Group predicted 11 million by 2008 (Forrester Report 2006). IPTV (internet protocol TV) supported sliver TV is coming. YouTube, the best known sliver TV, has daunting statistics. In July 2006, YouTube’s viewers were "watching more than 100 million videos per day on its site” (Bogatin 2006) and the fare is not solely amateur rock videos, the site is loaded with video-blogs and news commentaries. Today (October 11, 2006), nanotechnology gets 60 hits while science receives over 11,000. In the US, we have over 100 million broadband users and millions of potential producers today.
Most importantly, as news media becomes more self-selectively personalized, readers will be able to ignore information that contrasts with pre-existing judgments. Sunstein worried about this self-sustaining cycle of one-sided information, attesting that the smallest of triggers can produce large effects and worries about a major event (2001).

In sum, there is much disagreement on if, why, and how experts and the public use different tools to perceive risk; what trust means and its role in risk perception; and what sources of information are used and their role in risk perception. As such this grant proposal is suggesting that we engage in social science research which should run parallel to the toxicology research on nanoparticles. This small investment is an important partner to the environmental health and safety research currently being undertaken. As data on toxicology surfaces, it would be fortuitous to have a strategy for engaging the public based on something other than supposition and educated guesses.

Research Questions and Mechanisms

We have designed this research project to answer two core questions:
1. What factors are most significant in affecting public perception of the risks of applied nanosciences?
2. What, if any, relationship exists between the modes of public deliberation, sources of information (e.g., use of new media), and the effects of new information on perceptions of the risks of applied nanosciences?

The research methodology for answering these questions progresses through five stages, each building on and refining the results of the previous stages: (1) development of instruments, (2) Delphi rounds, (3) civic engagement events, (4) focus groups, (5) dissemination of findings and public outreach.

back to top

Stage One: Development of Instruments

During the first year of the project, we will host an interdisciplinary conference at the University of South Carolina North Carolina State University tentatively titled “Communicating Toxicology to the Public Risk in the 21st Century.”  The primary objectives of this conference are to isolate the key variables and to produce appropriate instruments with which we can assess public perceptions of the risks of applied nanosciences. The conference should also provide us with a clearer picture of the predictions of experts, based on the most recent research, of how the public perceives risks and how different modes of communication affect those perceptions. Professors Berube, Elliott, Gehrke and Sabo-Attwood, along with students from speech NCSU’s communication department and its Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media doctoral program and philosophy, will organize the conference. It will include guest speakers, associated experts, and speakers selected from an open call for participation by experts and students. Special invitations will be sent to representatives from associated centers and industry groups. As a deliverable at this stage, we will videotape the conference sessions and stream them for download. We will also publish the papers online on our web pages and open the papers to commentary on a second platform, such as Google-Writely, FuseTalk, or SharePoint.

Stage Two: Delphi Rounds

Based on the instruments produced from the conference and working with Prof. Oldendick’s Institute for Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) at the University of South Carolina, we will conduct Delphi rounds (Linston and Turoff 2002) during the second year of the project to determine what, if any, are the existing differences between public and expert perceptions of the risks of applied nanosciences. During this phase the research team will pay especially close attention to differences based on primary sources of information and variables that amplify or attenuate perceptions of risk. IRB waiver is found in supplementary materials.

We will run the Delphi rounds against two sets of two sample populations. The double set will be used to increase the validity of the rankings. The first sample population will consist of experts in science and technology, both technical and regulatory, including representatives from academia, industry, and government drawn from the Society of Toxicology (www.toxicology.org). The second population will consist of randomly selected members of the public.

Prof. Scheufele will lead the statistical analysis of the data. The entire team will convene around graduate seminars hosted at North Carolina State University University of South Carolina and the University of Wisconsin to examine the study results and to write a summary and a report. All disagreements will be resolved within a consensus exercise, and exceptions will appear in a minority report. We will publish the results on our web pages.

Stage Three: Civic Engagement Events

Incorporating the findings of the Delphi rounds, the research team will hold several civic engagement events during the third year of the project. These events will bring together nonexpert citizens (lay persons) and a variety of experts. Drawing on the information obtained from our initial conference and our associated experts, the events will include a variation on the nanojury
(NanoJury UK: launch of the preliminary findings 2005) and consensus conference (NC State Professors to Discuss Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology at AAAS Conference 2005, UW NSEC Sponsors Citizens Conference on Nanotechnology 2005) models.

We are examining alternatives to maximize the transparency of the event, heighten public participation in planning and executing the event, and increase proximity between the event and the policymakers (see Gregory, R., McDaniels, T. & Fields, D. (2001), Gregory, R. & Wellman, K. (2001).

Observation and coding of the events will seek to answer three questions:
(1) What effect can civic engagement events have on both public and expert perceptions of the risk of applied nanosciences?
(2) What, if any, relationship exists between modes of deliberative interaction and differences in the type or degree of change in perceptions of the risk of applied nanosciences?
(3) Does a person's use of new media as a primary source of news information correspond to differences in their mode or degree of involvement in civic engagement events?

Prof. Gehrke, in collaboration with Profs. Berube and Elliott, will organize these civic engagement events with the help of students from speech communication, philosophy, and political science. Prof. Oldendick and the IPSPR at USC will assist in producing a representative sample for these exercises. To the extent that we can do so while respecting participant confidentiality, we will share the findings of these events via our web pages.

back to top

Stage Four: Focus Groups

During the third and fourth years of the project, the research team will design and then conduct focus groups in Columbia, SC, Minneapolis, MN, and Houston, TX. These focus groups will verify and narrow the key variables that affect public perception of the risk of applied nanosciences. That focus should also provide us with a set of data from which we can assign relative values to the differing variables and clusters of variables. In order to narrow the topic of discussion, we will focus on the toxicological risks associated with the use of nanoparticles in the production and packaging of food.

Prof. Kuzma, along with Profs. Gehrke, Oldendick, and their students, will design a series of focus groups using traditional discussion formats, including scenario analysis (analyzing possible future events by considering alternative possible outcomes). We will alpha test the project with a team of students from the University of Minnesota. The beta run of the focus groups will be hosted in Columbia, Minneapolis, and Houston. Prof. Scheufele will lead the data analysis, and the entire team will generate a document of findings. We will publish the results on our web pages.

Stage Five: Dissemination of Findings and Public Outreach

This project ends with a conference to report conclusions and generate criticisms and future directions for research. Profs. Berube, Elliott, Gehrke, and Sabo-Attwood will coordinate this event. We will invite outside associated experts and representatives from associated centers and industry to participate. Students associated with the project will be invited to participate and present papers. The conference will involve presentations by the research team, with participants and invited guests breaking into work sessions to discuss the findings. Each breakout team will generate a brief report that will be published on our web pages. We will also videotape the conference sessions and stream them and post them for download on the web (see public engagement below).

At the conclusion of the study, we will continue to design and develop public outreach events. Components from the findings will be integrated into undergraduate courses in science and technology studies and debating science (currently under development supported by a NUE).

Experience with our civic engagement exercise will allow us to develop a method which has all the advantages of juries and consensus conferences and less of the drawbacks. In addition, we will target the general community through our existing citizen’s school and science café.

back to top

Study Outcomes

There are at least two major outcomes of this study: (1) new knowledge and data generation; and (2) public engagement and education.

New Knowledge and Data Sets

The data to be generated as a result of this project will fill some significant gaps in current knowledge about risk perception. We will take a variety of steps to disseminate this information as widely as possible.

Importance of the Data

This proposal fills several important gaps in current knowledge about public perception of technological risk. First, previous data sets have focused primarily on risk perception in the areas of nuclear energy generation and biotechnology. Very little information is available regarding other technologies, including applied nanoscience. Second, relatively little previous research has addressed the potential influence of “new media” sources on the communication of risk information. This proposal addresses both concerns. It gathers data regarding public risk perception of nanotechnology through a variety of mechanisms, including Delphi rounds, civic engagement exercises, and focus groups. Moreover, it specifically aims to gather information about how use of the new media affects risk perception. There are several other reasons why the knowledge generated by this research project is likely to be significant. In addition to general information about public perceptions of applied nanoscience, the focus groups will establish a knowledge set about a specific subject—nanotechnology related to food products. Moreover, it will provide us with an opportunity to determine how different sorts of civic engagement influence perceptions of applied nanoscience. Given that products containing nanomaterials are rapidly entering the market, this sort of information may prove to be extremely valuable in the formation of future public policymaking and efforts to communicate with the public.

Dissemination of Findings

We plan to use a number of strategies, including extensive use of the internet, to disseminate the data and findings from this research project. First, we will use digital videotaping and Microsoft Producer or Movie Maker to record and offer all lectures, discussions, and conference sessions, where appropriate, as a web-based open resource on the NCSU PCOST USC NanoCenter web page. Second, we will publish the papers from the opening conference and the final workshop on our web pages and open the papers to commentary on a second platform, such as Writely, FuseTalk, or SharePoint. Third, we will share as much data as possible from the civic engagement exercises (while respecting participant confidentiality) on our web pages. Fourth, the reports generated from the Delphi rounds and the focus groups will be published on our web pages.

back to top

Public Engagement and Education

In addition to generating new data and knowledge, this research project will increase public engagement with applied nanoscience and create educational opportunities in at least three major ways: (1) creating structured avenues for members of the public to learn about nanoscience, (2) providing opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students to learn about research methodologies, and (3) reaching out to under-represented populations.

Avenues for Public Engagement

The Delphi rounds, civic engagement exercises, and focus groups proposed as part of this research project will add to the efforts that North Carolina State University and the University of South Carolina have been making to raise public awareness of applied nanoscience (Milbrath 1981).

USC hosts a regularly scheduled the South Carolina Citizens’ School of Nanotechnology (SCCSN) and a nanoscience cafe.

The Delphi rounds, civic engagement exercises, and focus groups will provide further opportunities for public discussion of nanoscience. The civic engagement events will provide a particularly valuable opportunity to allow non-expert citizens and experts to interact. And, insofar as these events will be designed partly to determine what modes of deliberative interaction have the greatest impact on expert and lay perceptions of risk, this research will provide information that can enhance public engagement with nanotechnology in the future. In addition, components from the findings will be integrated into undergraduate courses in science and technology studies and debating science (currently under development supported by a NUE). Experience with our civic engagement exercise will allow us to develop a method which has all the advantages of juries and consensus conferences and less of the drawbacks. We will continue to target the general community through our existing citizen’s school and science café.

back to top

Educational Opportunities

We will provide opportunities for students to participate in this research project at every stage of the process. (1) Graduate and undergraduate students from philosophy, speech communication, political science, and public health will help to coordinate the conference that opens the grant and the workshop that concludes it under the direction of Profs. Berube and Elliott. (2) A team of graduate and undergraduate students will participate in designing and administering the Delphi rounds under the direction of Profs. Berube and Oldendick. The results will then be examined in graduate seminars hosted at the University of Wisconsin and at NCSU USC. (3) Graduate and undergraduate students at USC will participate in designing, hosting, and assessing the civic engagement activities under the direction of Profs. Gehrke and Oldendick. (4) The focus groups designed by Profs. Gehrke, Kuzma, and Oldendick will be alpha tested by a team of graduate students from the University of Minnesota. (5) Students associated with the project will be invited to participate and present papers at the final workshop.

back to top

Outreach to Minority Populations

Basing this research project at the University of South Carolina facilitates a  number of outreach opportunities to minority populations. First, South Carolina is an EPSCoR state. The South Carolina EPSCoR program identifies, develops, and uses academic science and technology resources to increase South Carolina’s research and development competitiveness and to support economic growth through the state’s colleges and universities, their science and   engineering faculty, and their students. Moreover, the University of South Carolina has a broad-based minority population with approximately 13.5% African-American undergraduates. A recent African-American publication (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Winter 2005/2006) ranked the University of South Carolina as one of the top undergraduate institutions for African-American students in the USA. Minority populations will be reached by the NUE related coursework, citizen school sessions, and science café meetings. Finally, because of South Carolina’s demographics and because the methodologies designed to generate our data sets will involve representative sampling, traditionally under-represented populations will be included in our and civic engagement process and our participation pools for all other activities.

North Carolina State University hosts pre-college programs for minority students, such as Science House, Culture Crops, and the Academic Enrichment Opportunities (AEO) Program and colleges program including the Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) Village and well as the MANRRS (Minorities in Agriculture and Natural Resources and Related Sciences program. NCSU has minority extension programs such as its Coop Extension Change Agent States for Diversity (CASD) and the North Carolina Cooperative Extension’s Diversity Catalyst Team. NCSU also hosts outreach programs including the Triangle South Asia Consortium, the Center for International Ethnicity Studies (CIES), and the Encore Center for Lifelong Enrichment. In 2004 Black Issues in Higher Education ranked NCSU among the nation's leaders in the graduation of African American students with graduate degrees in mathematics, science, engineering, and technology. Since 1993, NCSU has been recognized as one of the 100 best colleges for African American students. In addition, the NCSU Women in Science and Engineering program is considered a model for higher education. NCSU is a campus where everyone is welcome.

back to top

Management and Research Teams

The NanoScience and Technology Studies project at the University of South Carolina has already been home to four major grants: two NIRTS, a CNS node, and a NUE. We have brought together another well-qualified, interdisciplinary group to manage this grant and guide the research. It consists of a management team under the direction of the PI, David Berube; an interdisciplinary group of investigators from the University of South Carolina, Rice University, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Wisconsin; and the Institute for Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) at USC.

back to top

References

Alhakami, A. S. & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085-1096.

Barke, R. P. & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13, 425-439.

Berube, D. (2006). Nano-hype: The Truth Beyond the Nanotechnology Buzz, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Berube, D. (2000). Debunking mini-max reasoning. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 21, 53-73.

Bogatin, D. (2006). YouTube the video star, Act II. ZDNet, July 17, http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=252, (accessed October 11, 2006).

Burns, E. (2006). Blogs Suffer in Poll On Preferred News Sources. ClickZ Network. October 3. http://clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3623588. (accessed October 5, 2006).

Cohen, B. (1985). Criteria for technology acceptability. Risk Analysis, 5:1, 1-3.

Cohen, G. L., Sherman, D. K, McGoey, M., Hsu, L., Bastardi, A. & Ross, L. (2005). Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological close-mindedness and inflexibility, September 10. http://research.yale.edu/culturalcognition/documents/cohen_self_affirmation_draft.pdf, (accessed October 3, 2006).

Cultural Cognition Project, Yale Law School, National Risk and Culture Survey. October 3, 2006, http://research.yale.edu/culturalcognition/content/view/45/89/, (accessed October 3, 2006).

Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61-82.

Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. and L. Sjöberg. 1991. Attitudes and conceptions of adolescents with regard to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21, 2007-2035.

Einsiedel, E. (2005). In the Public Eye: The Early Landscape of Nanotechnology among Canadian and U.S. Publics, August 5, http://www.azonano.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1468. (accessed October 8, 2006).

Fife-Schaw, C. & Rowe, G. (1996). Public perception of everyday food hazards: A psychometric study. Risk Analysis, 16. 487-500.

Finucane, M. L. (2001). Public perceptions of risk. Oregonians for Rationality, http://www.o4r.org/pf_v6n2/Risk.htm. (accessed May 18, 2005).

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, D. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.

Fischoff, B, Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Weighing the risks: Which risks are acceptable?” Environment, 2, 17-20, 32-38 reprinted in P. Slovic. (2000). The Perception of Risk, London: Earthscan Publication, Ltd.121-136.

Fischoff, B, Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Studies, 9, 127-152.

Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13, 643-648.

Forrester Report. (2006). Forester Report on Podcasting. April 6. http://www.podtech.net/?=510. (accessed October 5, 2006).

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderly, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food related risk? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16, 473-486.

Frewer, L. j., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk benefit and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22, 98-124.

Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900-901. http://www.nature.com/naturejournal/v438/n70707/full/438900a.html. (accessed June 9, 2006).

Gregory, R., McDaniels, T. & Fields, D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 415-432.

Gregory, R. & Wellman, K. (2001). Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics, 39, 37-52.

Hohenemser, C. Kates, R. W. & Slovic, P. (1983). The nature of technological hazard. Science, 220, 378-384 reprinted in P. Slovic. (2000). The Perception of Risk, London: Earthscan Publication, Ltd. 168-181
Jasanoff, S. (1993) Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 13, 123-129.

Jenkins-Smith, H. C. & Silva, C. L. (1998). Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 107-122.

Johnson, B. (1992). Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol4/summer/johnson.htm. (accessed October 6, 2006).

Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D. & Gastil, J. (2006). Fear of democracy: A cultural evaluation of Sunstein on risk. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1071-1109.

Kanjanne, A. & Pirttilä-Backman, A. (1999). Laypeople’s viewpoints about the reasons for expert controversy regarding food additives. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 303-315.

Kapferer, J. N. (1989). A mass poisoning rumor in Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 467-481.

Kasperson, R. E., Ortwin, R., Slovic, P., Brown, H., Emel, J., Goble, R. L., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. J. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187.

Kletz, T. A. (1996). Risk – Two views: The public’s and the experts. Disaster Prevention Magazine, 5, 41-46.

Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12, 215-231.

Krueger, R.A. (1994) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Linstone, H. A. & Turoff, M. eds. (2002). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, New Jersey Institute of Technology: H. A. Linstone & M. Turoff. http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/. (accessed September 25, 2006).

MacGregor, D. G., Slovic, P. & Malmfors, T. (1999). How exposed is exposed enough? Lay inferences about chemical exposure. Risk Analysis, 19, 649-659.

McGann, R. (2004). The blogosphere by the numbers. ClickZ Network. November 22. http://clickz.com/stats/sectors/traffic_patterns/. (accessed

McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J., Cavanagh, N. S. & O’Riordan, T. (1997). Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis, 17, 341-352.

Milbrath, L. W. (1981). Citizen surveys as citizen participation mechanisms. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 478-496.

NanoJury UK: launch of the preliminary findings. (2005). Science in Society, September 11. http://www.sci-soc.net/SciSoc/NoticeBoard/Events/NanoJury+UK+launch+of+preliminary+findings.htm, (accessed October 8, 2006).

Oryang, D. (2002). Probabilistic Scenario Analysis (PSA) – A Methodology for Quantitative Risk Assessment. www.nappo.org/PRA-Symposium/PDF-Final/Oryang.pdf. (accessed October 8, 2006).

NC State Professors to Discuss Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology at AAAS Conference. (2005). http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_02/045.htm, (accessed October 8, 2006).

Neil, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1994). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Toxicologic Pathology, 22:2, 198-201.

Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P., eds. (2003). The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.

Renn, O. (2004). Perception of risk: socio-psychological models. Consumer Voice, March, p. 4.

Rothman, S. & Lichter, R. (1987). Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy. American Political Science Review, 81, 383-404.

Rowe, G. & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 21. 341-356.

Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004) Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24:5, 1289-1299.

Savadori, L., Rumiati, R., & Bonini, N. (1998). Expertise and regional differences in risk perception: The case of Italy. Journal of Psychology, 57, 101-113.

Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103 122.

Scheufele, D. & Lowenstein, B. (2006). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667.

Siebert, F. S. (1956). The Libertarian Theory. In F. S. Siebert, T. Peterson, & W. Schramm (Eds.), Four theories of the press (pp. 39-71). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Sjöberg, L. (2002). The allegedly simple structure of experts’ risk perception: An urban legend in risk research, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27, Autumn, 443-459.

Sjöberg, L. (2001). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 21. 189-198.

Sjöberg, L. (2000a). Consequences matter, risk is marginal. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 287-295.

Sjöberg, L. (2000b). Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 353-367.

Sjöberg, L. (1999a). Political decisions and public risk perception. A paper read at the Third International Public Policy and Social Science Conference, St. Catherine’s College, Oxford University, UK, July 28-30, 1999.

Sjöberg, L. (1999b). Risk perception by the public and by experts: A dilemma in risk management. Human Ecology Review, 6, 1-9.

Sjöberg, L. (1998). World views, political attitudes and risk perception. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 9, Spring. 137-152.

Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19. 689-701.

Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13. 675-682.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.

Slovic, P. (1986). Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 6, 403-415.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lictenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. R. Kates, C. Hohenemser & J. Kasperson, eds. Boulder: Westview Press. 91-125.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment, 21, 14-20, 36-39.

Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. S., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intuitive toxicology II: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15, 661-675.

Sparks, P. & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perception of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14, 799-806.

Starr, C. (1969). Social perception versus rational risk. Science, 165, p. 1232.

Sunstein, C. R. (2004). Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment. NY: Cambridge UP.

Sunstein, C. R. (2001). The daily we. The Boston Review. Summer. http://www.boston.review.net/BR26.3/sunstein.html. (accessed June 15, 2006)

UW NSEC Sponsors Citizens Conference on Nanotechnology. (2005).
http://www.nsec.wisc.edu/NS--Nugget.php?ID=3, (accessed October 8, 2006).

Wahlberg, A. A. & Sjöberg, L. (2000). Risk perception and the media. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 31-50.

Weinstein, N. D. (1988). Attitudes of the Public and the Department of Environmental Protection Toward Environmental Hazards. Final Report, Trenton, New Jersey, Division of Science and Research, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Wyler, A. R., Masuda, M. & Holmes, T. H. (1968). Seriousness of illness rating scale. Journal of Psychsomatic Research, 11, 363-374.