Nano and asbestos? A closer look from ICON ...

UPDATE to nanopublic post from 5/20/08:

ICON at Rice University has produced an excellent background document, discussing the methodologies and adequate interpretations of the two studies comparing responses in mice to multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT or MWNT) and certain asbestos fibers

Here's the section from the ICON report on interpreting the results :

"These studies do not address whether humans may be exposed to MWCNT in a way that causes disease. While more research is needed to understand the potential implications of this work for human health, the two studies taken together point to the need for a careful assessment of the potential for MWCNT to cause injury to humans. The many outstanding questions that these papers raise include

* How dose is measured for MWCNT and what constitutes an appropriate dose in mice to correlate with human risk;
* The role of metals within the nanotube samples. (The Nature Nanotechnology study found that metals derived from the MWCNT could not explain the different effects of exposure to long straight vs. short tangled MWCNT. The J. Tox. Sci. study did not rule out the iron contaminant within the MWCNT samples as the agent responsible for promoting the formation of the cancerous lesions.)
* Whether short, tangled MWCNT, which are non-fibrous, have a toxic effect unrelated to effects associated with exposure to fiber-like particles;
* Whether MWCNT can persist long enough in the body and migrate to the mesothelium to induce the effects seen here in mice;
* Whether humans can be exposed to MWCNT in quantities sufficient to induce the effect seen here in mice.

Despite these caveats both groups of authors believe that their findings are important for understanding the potential hazards of MWCNT and should inform industrial risk management practices so that exposure to humans is limited. As they note, without exposure there is no risk, even if the substance is very hazardous."

(Click here for Kristen Kulinowski's full report.)

First nano newswave: Of mice, nano, and asbestos

Nanotech may soon have its very own Losey butterfly study. Tomorrow morning will bring the first substantive wave of mainstream news coverage focusing on nano risks. The trigger? A forthcoming letter in Nature Nanotechnology, comparing the health risks of some carbon nanotubes to those of asbestos. The "nano as the next asbestos" analogies are not new, of course, but the Nature Nanotech study is one of the first to back the news frames with peer-reviewed science.

See relevant coverage in the today's late editions or tomorrow's early editions of the the Financial Times, Christian Science Monitor, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post.

"Sights Unseen:" Vegan soup and nano visuals

UW-Madison press release:

In May, 14 striking, larger-than-life photographic prints that are both comfortingly organic and starkly abstract will enable patrons of Mother Fool's Coffeehouse in Madison to visualize a scientific world that's rarely seen outside the laboratory.

"Sights Unseen: Images of the Nanoscale" is an art exhibit featuring research images captured by faculty, staff and students in UW-Madison's National Science Foundation-funded Materials Research Science and Engineering Center on Nanostructured Interfaces and the NSF-funded Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center. The exhibit runs throughout May, with an opening reception from 7-9 p.m. on Sunday, May 4, at the coffeehouse, 1101 Williamson St.

Nanotechnology is a new area in science and engineering that deals with incredibly small materials. These materials are on the scale of nanometers, a billion of a meter. (A one-gallon can of paint, painted one nanometer thick, would cover the entire UW-Madison campus.)

Materials at this super-small scale can behave in new ways. For example, nanoscale gold is red, and nanoscale aluminum spontaneously combusts. Scientists and engineers hope to use these unique properties in new and improved applications, ranging from faster computers to cancer-fighting medical treatments.

The pictures in the "Sights Unseen" exhibit bring this super-small world into the limelight by showcasing its beauty. Among the images are black-and-white nano-sized rods that look like massive trees toppled by a strong wind, and a computer-generated representation of data that resembles psychedelic posters from the '70s.

Mother Fools Coffeehouse's hours are 6:30 a.m.-11 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m.-11 p.m. weekends.

Plastic or asbestos? Nano goes mainstream

PBS will air the first installment of their three-part series "Nanotechnology: The power of small" on April 2, 2008 (for an overview, see Mike Treder's post at Responsible Nanotechnology). And as far as a discussion of potential risks go, the program touches upon all the issues that our recent survey-based work identified as main concerns for the public (i.e., privacy) and for nano scientists (i.e., human health concerns and environmental risks).

"The series’ three programs explore critical questions about nanotechnology’s potential impact on privacy, the environment and human health: Will nanotechnology make you safer, or will it be used to track your every move? Will nanotechnology keep you young, and what happens if you live to be 150? Will nanotechnology help clean up the earth, or will it be the next asbestos?"

(Click here for the premiere event at the Project for Emerging Nanotechnologies.)

The program also sets the stage for the inevitable battle over the dominant frames in the emerging public debate about nanotechnology. Will it be the next asbestos or the next plastic? Is the right to privacy incompatible with the right to live and to find new cures for diseases? And what are the ethical concerns connected with pushing the envelope in terms of what is scientifically possible?

From the trailer, it seems that the the series gives short shrift to a key part of the equation: systematic, large-scale research that deals with what the public actually is concerned about, the potential benefits that citizens do see in the new technology, or potential informational gaps among different groups of the public and the role that media have played so far in (not) closing these gaps. Ironically, understanding how this debate does in fact influence or involve the public seems to be an afterthought at best for Public Broadcasting.

"The series begins airing on local public broadcasting stations in April 2008. [...] It is funded by NSF and the presenting station and grantee for the series is Oregon Public Broadcasting. The series is a “Fred Friendly Seminars” presentation with award-winning National Public Radio correspondent John Hockenberry as host."

Nanosilver is back in the news ... and off the shelves, for now

From tomorrow's New York Times:

New Device for Germophobes Runs Into Old Law

By BARNABY J. FEDER

With so many people worried about getting sick — whether from the common cold and flu or exotic new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria — Paul and Jeffrey Metzger had every reason to hope that the germ-fighting key fob they invented would be a runaway hit.

Their device, known as the Handler, began selling last year online and in stores like Duane Reade pharmacies for about $11. It features a pop-out hook so germophobes can avoid touching A.T.M. keypads, door handles and other public surfaces where undesirable microbes may lurk. As added protection, the Handler’s rubber and plastic surfaces are impregnated with tiny particles of silver to kill germs that land on the device itself.

But those little silver particles have run Maker Enterprises, the Metzger brothers’ partnership in Los Angeles, into a big regulatory thicket. The Metzgers belatedly realized that the Environmental Protection Agency might decide that a 1947-era law that regulates pesticides would apply to antimicrobial products like theirs. The agency ruled last fall that the law covered Samsung’s Silvercare washing machine. Samsung was told it would have to register the machine as a pesticide, a potentially costly and time-consuming process, because the company claims the silver ions generated by the washer kill bacteria in the laundry.

(Read the full article here.)

Environmental, Health and Safety Aspects of Nanotechnology: A Workshop for Reporters

UW announcement on
nano workshop for journalists:

The Big Picture on Small Things:
Exploring nanotechnology’s benefits and risks when communicating with the public

When: July 20–22, 2008

Where: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI

Nanotechnology is everywhere today in consumer products, emerging medicines and scientific research. Which advances will change our lives the most? What role will regulation play as the field develops? And how can journalists best convey both the promise and potential risks of this emerging technology?

Journalists interested in exploring these and other questions about nanotechnology’s larger issues are invited to apply for a two-and-a-half day course in Madison, Wisconsin:

Environmental, Health and Safety Aspects of Nanotechnology: A Workshop for Reporters.

Sponsored by the UW–Madison Materials Research Science and Engineering Center on Nanostructured Interfaces and the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, the program will consist of seminars, panel presentations, laboratory tours, hands-on activities and a trip to a local nanotech startup company.

Anticipated speakers and topics include:

• Environmental impacts of nanotechnology: The EPA perspective

• Media’s role in forming public opinion on emerging technologies

• Consumer health benefits and risks

• Occupational safety and nanotechnology

• Regulating nanotechnology at the state level

Attendees will be chosen on a competitive basis. Each will receive a fellowship, covering all travel and lodging expenses, through the support of the Ira and Ineva Reilly Baldwin Wisconsin Idea Endowment.

To apply, send a cover letter, résumé or CV, and writing sample to baldwin8@cae.wisc.edu.

For more information: Visit http://mrsec.wisc.edu/Edetc/reporters2008/

Religion and nano … what the data show

Following up on some of the recent coverage of our AAAS presentation and press briefing (see, for example here, here, and here), let me provide a few pieces of background info. As part of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University we’ve been collecting survey data since 2004 now on public attitudes toward and awareness of nanotechnology. These data allow us to make comparisons over time using nationally representative samples and stable measures.

In our most recent iteration, we also designed a battery of questions to parallel the wording of questions in the 64.3 Eurobarometer surveys about public attitudes toward nanotechnology. This provides us with data from over 30 countries on attitudes toward nanotechnology and nano regulations.

First comparisons showed many similarities between the U.S. and key players in Europe (see Figure 1). There was, however, one difference between Europe and the U.S. And that was that respondents in the U.S. were significantly less likely to agree that “nanotechnology is morally acceptable.” At first glance, of course, this finding seems somewhat puzzling. Why would consumers and citizens have moral qualms about a technology they know little about?

Figure 1: Nano attitudes in the U.S. and Europe

(Scheufele, D. A. (2008, February). Engaging religious audiences on nanotechnology. Presented to the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston, MA.)

In order to make more sense of this finding, we also looked at the World Values Survey, an extremely rich data set with data from over 75 countries on religious views, values, media use, demographics and other variables. And the pattern was not surprising. On a ten-point scale, U.S. respondents scored between 8 and 9 on average when indicating how much guidance god provided in their daily lives. European respondents in Germany, France, and the U.K., in contrast, consistently scored below 5.

And these differences are at least consistent with the idea that religiosity may play more of a role among the U.S. public than European audiences when it comes to nanotechnology. At the same time, however, comparing aggregate level data from different data sources can suggest a potential explanation, but provides no conclusive evidence. Some of that individual-level data, however, can be found in a forthcoming study conducted by colleagues of mine at Wisconsin and myself, examining the role of religiosity in moderating the impact of risk/benefit perceptions on nano attitudes.

And the influences we found in that study of religiosity on attitudes toward nanotech in the U.S. were very interesting. First, our data showed a weak link between religiosity and attitudes toward nanotech and nano funding. And that most likely reflects a general reservation toward science among religious respondents. More importantly, however, our data showed that religiosity also serves as an important "filter" for certain publics when they make sense of nano. I have written about this idea before:

Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20-25). London: The Wellcome Trust.

And again, this is not just about a simple correlation between religiosity and attitudes toward science, which is important in its own right. But in this case, we're talking about a link between benefit perceptions and attitudes that varies depending on respondents' levels of religiosity. In other words, seeing the benefits of nanotechnology is consistently linked to more positive attitudes ... at least among less religious respondents. For more religious respondents, in contrast, that effect is significantly weaker, and seeing the benefits of nano does not necessarily translate into support for the technology or future funding (see Figure 2).

(Based on more complex multivariate models, outlined in Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (forthcoming). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science.)

Putting information out there, of course, continues to be an important goal for all science communication. But we also need to realize that different publics have different informational deficits, react very differently to information, and -- most importantly -- are looking for answers to questions that often have very little to do with the scientific issues surrounding emerging technologies. As the data from our forthcoming articles show, fitting the moral implications of nano breakthroughs into their existing belief or value systems is much more important for some groups in society at the moment than understanding the science behind it.

(For media coverage of this story, see ABCnews.com. BusinessWeek, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Capital Times, Wired, Science Daily, and other reactions from the blogosphere.)

New NNI strategy document on nanotech EHS research

"EurekAlert

February 14, 2008, 10 a.m.-The Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Technology today released a document describing the National Nanotechnology Initiative's (NNI) strategy for addressing priority research on the environment, health and safety (EHS) aspects of nanomaterials.

The full report, Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research is available at http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_Research_Strategy.pdf."

Science reaching the public -- AAAS more relevant than ever?

From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

"This week newspapers in Beijing, radios in Brisbane, and television sets in Berlin will all carry stories springing from Room 112, a windowless cell buried within Boston's Hynes Convention Center. More than 600 reporters and producers from media outlets around the world will be buzzing around that news-briefing room and nearby meeting halls, lured by legions of scientists giving talks about AIDS, climate change, poverty, stem cells, and many other thorny issues that confront modern society.

[...]

In recent decades, though, the AAAS has struggled to keep its annual meeting from fading into history. As more-specialized societies have taken over the regular business of science, the AAAS meeting has had trouble attracting researchers and providing cutting-edge presentations. It actually loses money for its parent organization, and some have questioned its usefulness.

So the AAAS has tried to carve out a unique niche for its annual meeting — as a place where scientists can best reach out not just to colleagues, but also to the mass media and the world at large.

[...]

"There's been a decline in public interest, public trust, and public support for science — and scientists want it back," says Sharon Dunwoody, a professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who has studied the behavior of reporters at AAAS meetings.

But with increasing competition for their attention, and tighter travel budgets, many journalists have trouble justifying a trip to the meeting. National Public Radio, for example, has not routinely sent any reporters to cover the meeting for more than a decade, says Richard Harris, a science correspondent at the network.

Still, Ms. Dunwoody expects the press room in a popular destination like Boston to be overflowing, a prediction that matches the high number of media-registration requests received by the AAAS."

(click here for the full article)

The 2008 AAAS annual meeting will take place later this week in Boston, MA:

"Science and Technology from a Global Perspective emphasizes the power of science and technology as well as education to assist less-developed segments of the world society, to improve partnerships among already-developed countries, and to spur knowledge-driven transformations across a host of fields. With more than 150 symposia as well as plenary and topical lectures and a variety of special events to choose from, Boston is the place to be from 14-18 February for anyone with a passion for science or a desire to meet the world's leading experts.

Click here to view the full program."

News release: EPA Launches Major Nanotechnology Monitoring Project; Top Government Officials to Speak at FDLI Conference

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- By 2014, the market for nanotechnology goods will grow to an astronomical $2.6 trillion, according to Lux Research. Now, federal agencies have begun to focus their attention on regulating this burgeoning new technology. A Food and Drug Administration task force recently issued a major report on nanotechnology, and the Environmental Protection Agency just launched its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP) to find out the human health and environmental risks and benefits of nanoscale chemical products.

Now, for the first time, top officials at the agencies responsible for the regulation of nanotechnology products --- including the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Department of Agriculture --- will meet at a Food and Drug Law Institute conference to discuss their plans for managing and monitoring these products.

At FDLI's 1st Annual Conference on Nanotechnology Law, Regulation and Policy, February 28-29, 2008, at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, in Washington, D.C., food and drug industry representatives also will find out what's happening internationally on nanotech regulation, how venture capitalists look at the future of nanotechnology and what the leading corporations, scientific laboratories and academic centers are focusing on in this dynamic field.

This groundbreaking conference, co-sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, in partnership with Arizona State University and the Burdock Group, will address the crucial issues surrounding nanotechnology law, regulation and policy, including:

-- What first and second generation nanotechnology products already are on the market, and what is to come?
-- Is Congress ready to act on nanotechnology if federal regulators do not?
-- Do Europe and Asia approach nanotechnology safety and oversight differently than the United States?
-- How do consumers see nanoproducts?
-- When it comes to nanotechnology, should size make a regulatory difference?

Michael Taylor, Research Professor of Health Policy, School of Public Health and Health Services, The George Washington University, and author of the most comprehensive report published on nanotechnology regulation at FDA, Regulating the Products of Nanotechnology, Does FDA Have the Tools It Needs?, will present the keynote address. Also, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), co-chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, and invited luncheon speaker, will discuss future congressional actions in this area.

Top-level FDA officials, including Associate Commissioner for Science Norris Alderson; Deputy Commissioner for Policy Randall W. Lutter; Deputy Associate General Counsel Jeffrey Senger; and Director of Food Additive Safety Laura Tarantino, will appear on a special panel on FDA regulation of nanotechnology.

Other featured speakers and moderators include:

Jay M. Ansell, Personal Care Products Council;
Susan D. Brienza, Of Counsel, Patton Boggs LLP;
George Burdock, President, Burdock Group;
Robert W. Carpick; University of Pennsylvania Director, The Nanotechnology Institute;
Ricardo Carvajal; Counsel, Reed Smith LLP;
Jim Czaban, Partner, WilmerHale;
Lee Farrow, Senior Vice President, ACE Medical Risk;
Piotr Grodzinski, Director, NCI Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer, NIH;
Ralph Hall, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School;
Robert A. Hoerr, President & CEO, Nanocopoeia, Inc.;
Michael Holman. Senior Analyst, Lux Research;
Karen Hunter, Program Specialist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service;
Rachel G. Lattimore, Partner, Arent Fox LLP;
Bernie Liebler, Director, Technology & Regulatory Affairs, AdvaMed;
Scott Livingston, Managing Director, Axiom Capital Management/The Livingston Group;
Jane Macoubrie, President, Embry Research;
Ellen Maldenado, Attorney-at-Law;
Gary Marchant, Lincoln Professor of Emerging Technologies, Law & Ethics
Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law;
Philippe Martin, Principal Administrator, Nanotechnologies Policy Development and Coordination, Consumer Protection Directorate (DG-SANCO),
European Commission;
Terry L. Medley, Global Director, Corporate Regulatory Affairs, DuPont Environment and Sustainable Growth Center;
Julia A. Moore, Deputy Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars;
Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance;
Fern P. O'Brian, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP;
Leon Radomsky, Chair, Nanotechnology Industry Team, Foley & Lardner LLP;
David W. Rejeski, Director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars;
Stephanie Scharf, Partner, Schoeman Updike Kauffman & Scharf;
Dietram Scheufele, Professor of Life Sciences Communication, University of Wisconsin;
Paul A. Schulte. Director, Education and Information Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health;
Laura Sciarrino, Vice President, Legal, CV Therapeutics, Inc.; and Regulatory Affairs, AdvaMed
Jim Willis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

2008 Science and Engineering Indicators released

The 2008 version of the National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators are out and available for download. Chapter 7, in particular, provides an excellent overview of public attitudes and social implications of emerging technologies, including nanotech.

One of the report's strengths are sidebars detailing the various bodies of literature in science communication and public opinion research that help contextualize the findings. The report also provides overview data on public attitudes toward nano, including some preliminary comparisons of nano attitudes in Europe, Canada, and the U.S:

Americans, Europeans, and Canadians share similarly favorable
attitudes about biotechnology and nanotechnology.

 In 2005, 71% of Americans and 67% of Canadians expressed
support for products and processes involving
biotechnology. Almost two-thirds of Europeans said they
expected biotechnology to positively affect their way of
life in the next 20 years.

 When told about nanotechnology, about half of Americans
surveyed in 2005 foresaw substantial or some benefit from
it, and 14% expected substantial or some risk. Canadian response
to the same question was similar. Among Europeans,
48% expected positive effects from nanotechnology, whereas
only 8% expected negative effects.

India's Volks-Nano

India's Tata Group just presented its smallest and cheapest new vehicle: the "Tata Nano." The Nano is 3.10 meters long, 1.50 meters wide, and 1.60 meters high. With these dimensions, it is literally a dwarf, compared to many U.S. cars. The GMC Yukon XL, for instance, is 5.64 meters long, 2,01 meters wide, and 1.95 meters high. But at least the Yukon comes in a hybrid version ... which gets 20 miles per Gallon on the highway. The non-hybrid Nano, of course, gets 47 miles per Gallon (or 5l/100km), about the same as the Prius.

This from Tata Group's press release:

The launch of the People's Car by Tata Motors is a defining moment in the history of India's automotive industry. For Tata Motors, the car — christened the Nano, because it is a small car with high technology — is the next big step in a journey that began with the Indica. For the Tata Group, it is the realisation of a pioneering vision to create a breakthrough product globally that rewrites the rules of the small-car business.

(Click here for the full release.)

The manufacturer's description of the Nano as "The People's Car," of course, brings to mind some unfortunate comparisons to Adolf Hitler 's idea of a "Volkswagen." Many climate scientists, however, are less disturbed about the label, and much more about the environmental impacts of potentially turning India into a gigantic version of Los Angeles:

While the price has created a buzz, critics say the vehicle ... will lead to possibly millions more cars hitting already clogged Indian roads, adding to mounting air and noise pollution problems. ... Chief U.N. climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri, who shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize, said last month that "I am having nightmares" about the prospect of the low-cost car.

(Click here for the full AP story.)

ISI data: Wisconsin highly productive and high impact in communication ... again

The December 3, 2007 issue of Thomson Learning’s SCI-BYTES ranks the University of Wisconsin again among the very best programs in communication. Based on SSI data from 2002 to 2006, Wisconsin was ranked #2 in terms of scholarly impact, measured by the average number of citations per article. Wisconsin also had far more publications than any other school in the top-5, and came in ahead of the University of Michigan, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who were ranked 3rd, 4th, and 5th, respectively, in terms of citation rates.

Nanotech news agenda pushed by interest groups and think tanks in the U.S., and by scientists and scientific associations in the U.K.

Sharon Friedman at Lehigh and her colleagues just released the latest iteration of their longitudinal analysis of media coverage of nanotechnology in the U.S. and U.K. Friedman presented their findings at a meeting last week, organized by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars's Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Among the key findings: Coverage of nano risks in 2006 was almost double of what we saw the year before. And almost 50% of all articles about risk regulations in the U.S. were based on calls for regulatory action by interest groups, non-profits, and think tanks. In the U.K., in contrast, a majority of the risk coverage originated from calls for action by industry, scientific associations or university scientists (see Figure 1).

Figure 1:


Friedman's findings also provide additional context for the recent piece my colleagues and I published in Nature Nanotechnology (see nanopublic post from November 25, 2007), comparing public perceptions and scientist attitudes on nano risks and benefits. While scientists were overall more optimistic about the potential benefits and less concerned about the risks that the general public, our national surveys also identified two areas where nano scientists currently see more risks than the general public: human health, and environmental pollution.

One possible correlate of the higher levels of concern among scientists about environmental and health risks, of course, is the disproportionate focus on these two areas in elite discourse. And Friedman's findings provide empirical evidence that this in in fact true. More than a third of all reasons provided in mainstream news coverage in support of increased regulatory oversight were to "protect the environment" and to "protect people's health and safety" (see Figure 2).

Figure 2:



If it is the scientific consensus that drives coverage or vice versa, of course, remains an open empirical question.

New Nature Nanotechnology Editorial: Social and natural sciences need to get their act together

In an excellent editorial, Nature Nanotechnology Chief Editor Peter Rodgers today outlined some of the communication challenges nanotechnology may face in the near future. His editorial emphasized -- once again -- the need for systematic and research-based collaborations between social and natural sciences:

"However, nanoscientists and technologists should look to social scientists for more than just data on these questions — help from 'outside' is also needed to communicate effectively with the public. [...]

These and other results emphasize the difficulty of making sure there is not a public backlash against nanotechnology — there is no guarantee that the communication approaches that work for men in the US, for instance, will work for women in the US, let alone for anyone else in the world. One size certainly does not fit all. Given the complexity of this challenge it can be helpful to think in terms of 'frames' or 'perceptual filters' when trying to communicate with the public [...]. The basic idea of this approach is that most people are overloaded with information and not that interested in the details of nanotechnology or any other technology, so they use frames or filters — such as their political or religious beliefs — to process all this information and what it means for them."

(Read the full editorial here.)

Just to illustrate this point a little bit further, data from a forthcoming study by some of my colleagues and myself shows shows that religiosity is already emerging as an important "filter" for certain publics when they make sense of nano. And this is not just about a simple correlation between religiosity and attitudes toward science, which is important in its own right. But in this case, we're talking about a link between knowledge and attitudes that varies depending on respondents' levels of religiosity. In other words, knowing more about nanotechnology is consistently linked to more positive attitudes among less religious respondents. For more religious respondents, in contrast, high levels of knowledge do little to influence their attitudes about nano funding (see Figure).


(Based on Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (forthcoming). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science.)

Putting information out there, of course, continues to be an important goal for all science communication. But we also need to realize that different publics have different informational deficits, react very differently to information, and -- most importantly -- are looking for answers to questions that often have very little to do with the scientific issues surrounding emerging technologies. As the data from our forthcoming article show, fitting the moral implications of nano breakthroughs into their existing belief systems is much more important for sizable groups in society at the moment than understanding the science behind it.

For more on this idea of perceptual filters, see:

Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (forthcoming). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science.

Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Five lessons in nano outreach. Materials Today, 9(5), 64.