Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts

Researchers are faced with challenges when addressing the public on concepts and applications associated with nanotechnology. The goal of our work was to understand the public’s knowledge of nanotechnology in order to identify appropriate starting points for dialog. Survey results showed that people lack true understanding of concepts associated with atoms and the size of the nanoscale regime. Such gaps in understanding lead to a disappointing lack of communication between researchers and the public concerning fundamental concepts in nanoscale science and engineering. Strategies are offered on how scientists should present their research when engaging the public on nanotechnology topics.

[1]  A. Shelton,et al.  The monarch butterfly controversy: scientific interpretations of a phenomenon. , 2001, The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology.

[2]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

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

[4]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  The US National Nanotechnology Initiative after 3 years (2001–2003) , 2004 .

[5]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Deep‐Level Comprehension of Science Texts: The Role of the Reader and the Text , 2005 .

[6]  W. Howard Levie,et al.  Effects of text illustrations: A review of research , 1982 .

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

[8]  Robert D. Tennyson,et al.  An Empirically Based Instructional Design Theory for Teaching Concepts , 1986 .

[9]  L. Melber,et al.  Editorial: Beyond the Classroom: Linking with Informal Education , 1999 .

[10]  H. Dekkers,et al.  Cross‐national differences in participating in tertiary science, technology, engineering and mathematics education , 2005 .

[11]  E. Winter.  Public Communication of Science and Technology , 2004 .

[12]  R. Mayer,et al.  A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory , 1998 .

[13]  A. Paivio,et al.  Memory for pictures and sounds: independence of auditory and visual codes. , 1994, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[14]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research , 2005 .

[15]  Susan Stocklmayer,et al.  The communication of science and technology: Past, present and future agendas , 2003 .

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

[17]  Susan A. Brown,et al.  Teaching Tip: It's All Fun and Games ... Until Students Learn , 2005, J. Inf. Syst. Educ..

[18]  A. Paivio.  Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach , 1986 .