Validation and Exploration of Instruments for Assessing Public Knowledge of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology

The purposes of this study were to develop instruments that assess public knowledge of nanotechnology (PKNT), public attitudes toward nanotechnology (PANT) and conduct a pilot study for exploring the relationship between PKNT and PANT. The PKNT test was composed of six scales involving major nanotechnology concepts, including size and scale, structure of matter, size-dependent properties, forces and interactions, tools and instrumentation, as well as science, technology, and society. After item analysis, 26 multiple-choice questions were selected for the PKNT test with a KR-20 reliability of 0.91. Twenty items were developed in the PANT questionnaire which can be classified as scales of trust in government and industry, trust in scientists, and perception of benefit and risk. Cronbach alpha for the PANT questionnaire was 0.70. In a pilot study, 209 citizens, varying in age, were selected to respond to the instruments. Results indicated that about 70 % of respondents did not understand most of the six major concepts involving nanotechnology. The public tended to distrust government and industry and their levels of trust showed no relationship to their levels of knowledge about nanotechnology. However, people perceived that nanotechnology provided high benefits and high risks. Their perceptions of the benefits and risks were positively related with their knowledge level of nanotechnology. People’s trust showed a negative relationship to their risk perception. Implications for using these instruments in research are discussed in this paper.

[1]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers , 1983 .

[2]  Michael D. Cobb,et al.  Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust , 2004, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[3]  R. C. Laugksch.  Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview , 2000 .

[4]  M. Gail Jones,et al.  Learning at the nanoscale: The impact of students' use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy , 2003 .

[5]  Oliver P. John,et al.  Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. , 2000 .

[6]  Susanna Hornig Priest,et al.  The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  F. Pacheco-Torgal,et al.  Nanotechnology: Advantages and drawbacks in the field of construction and building materials , 2011 .

[8]  Patrick Sturgis,et al.  Attitudes to biotechnology: Estimating the opinions of a better-informed public , 2005, New genetics and society.

[9]  Frances P Lawrenz,et al.  The Assessment of Students and Teachers' Understanding of Gas Laws. , 2000 .

[10]  Jon D. Miller.  The measurement of civic scientific literacy , 1998 .

[11]  Susanna Hornig Priest,et al.  North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio‐ and nanotechnologies , 2008 .

[12]  A. Agresti,et al.  Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences , 1979 .

[13]  Wendy C. Crone,et al.  Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts , 2007 .

[14]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Affect, Values, and Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation , 2007 .

[16]  Monika Kurath,et al.  Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology , 2009, Public understanding of science.

[17]  Robert Langer,et al.  Nanotechnology in drug delivery and tissue engineering: from discovery to applications. , 2010, Nano letters.

[18]  Victor Herbert Noll,et al.  Introduction to educational measurement , 1957 .

[19]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[20]  James Shanahan,et al.  Do They Know What They Read? Building a Scientific Literacy Measurement Instrument Based on Science Media Coverage , 2006 .

[21]  Ivan P. Parkin,et al.  Self-cleaning coatings , 2005 .

[22]  P. K. Imbrie,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure Undergraduates’ Nanotechnology Awareness, Exposure, Motivation, and Knowledge , 2008 .

[23]  Risks From an “Unknown” Technology: How lowans Perceive Agricultural Sludge , 1999 .

[24]  N. E. Gronlund.  Measurement and evaluation in teaching , 1965 .

[25]  Allan G. Harrison,et al.  Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry , 2000 .

[26]  Grant E. Gardner,et al.  Students’ Risk Perceptions of Nanotechnology Applications: Implications for science education , 2010 .

[27]  Susanna Hornig Priest.  Misplaced Faith , 2001 .

[28]  Nastassja A. Lewinski,et al.  Cytotoxicity of nanoparticles. , 2008, Small.

[29]  José Mª Oliva,et al.  The structural coherence of students' conceptions in mechanics and conceptual change , 2003 .

[30]  Andrew Shouse,et al.  Learning science in informal environments : people, places, and pursuits , 2009 .

[31]  Jane Macoubrie.  Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government , 2006 .

[32]  Steven C. Currall,et al.  What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? , 2006, Nature nanotechnology.

[33]  Soumen Ghosh,et al.  Technical efficiency, risk attitude, and adoption of new technology: The case of the U.S. dairy industry , 1994 .

[34]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[35]  Avi Hofstein,et al.  Enhancing students' understanding of the concept of chemical bonding by using activities provided on an interactive website , 2009 .

[36]  Anna M. Waldron,et al.  The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology , 2006 .

[37]  Sheldon Krimsky,et al.  Environmental Hazards: Communicating Risks as a Social Process , 1988 .

[38]  Thomas R. Tretter,et al.  Haptic Augmentation of Science Instruction: Does Touch Matter? , 2006 .

[39]  S. Priest.  Nanotechnology and the Public: Risk Perception and Risk Communication , 2011 .

[40]  H. Kastenholz,et al.  Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[41]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[42]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Rating the Risks , 1979 .

[43]  S. Reise,et al.  Factor analysis and scale revision. , 2000, Psychological assessment.

[44]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Understanding public attitudes to technology , 1998 .

[45]  M. Roco.  Broader Societal Issues of Nanotechnology , 2003 .