Public attitudes toward nanotechnology applications in Taiwan

Abstract In view of the complex interaction between new emerging technology and society, the importance of the public attitudes toward nanotechnology applications should not be ignored. This study aims to examine the determinants that have influences upon benefits and risks perceptions of nanotechnology applications, which in turn influences the public attitudes toward nanotechnology applications in Taiwan. Of a total of 1500 self-reported questionnaire survey that was carried out in 2010 in Taiwan, 888 were found useful for this empirical analysis. In line with previous studies, the results of this empirical study conducted in Taiwan reveal that the public attitudes toward nanotechnology applications is found to be determined by their perceived benefits and risks of applying nanotechnology. The public's perceived benefits and risks of applying nanotechnology are, as expected, further determined by its attitudes toward technology, nanotechnology knowledge, and social trust in the related institutions. Based on the empirical results from this study, attempts will be made to provide suggestions to the government and the related parties.

[1]  H. Marsh,et al.  Assessing Goodness of Fit: Is Parsimony Always Desirable? , 1996 .

[2]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[3]  John Pendergrass,et al.  Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies , 2007 .

[4]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  Understanding the emergence and deployment of “nano” S&T , 2007, 0911.3323.

[5]  A. H. Arnall,et al.  Future Technologies, Today's Choices- Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics , 2003 .

[6]  Floyd J. Fowler,et al.  Survey Research Methods , 1984 .

[7]  Kangning Sun,et al.  Toxicological effects of multi-wall carbon nanotubes in rats , 2008 .

[8]  L. Forró,et al.  Cellular toxicity of carbon-based nanomaterials. , 2006, Nano letters.

[9]  S. Walsh,et al.  Managing knowledge assets under conditions of radical change: The case of the pharmaceutical industry , 2011 .

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

[11]  Vicki Stone,et al.  Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective , 2007 .

[12]  Zan Huang,et al.  International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database , 2004 .

[13]  M. Siegrist.  The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  R. Shepherd,et al.  The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production , 1998 .

[15]  Paul E. Spector.  Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? , 1987 .

[16]  J. Viaene,et al.  Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication , 2003 .

[17]  M. Prato,et al.  Functionalized carbon nanotubes are non-cytotoxic and preserve the functionality of primary immune cells. , 2006, Nano letters.

[18]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

[20]  William Clarke.  Repertorium Bibliographicum: LONDON, Royal Society , 2014 .

[21]  Timothy C. Earle,et al.  Social Trust , 1995 .

[22]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[23]  R. Aitken,et al.  Manufacture and use of nanomaterials: current status in the UK and global trends. , 2006, Occupational medicine.

[24]  William Sims Bainbridge,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology , 2002 .

[25]  S. Hung,et al.  Stimulating new industries from emerging technologies: challenges for the public sector , 2006 .

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

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

[28]  O. Renn,et al.  Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance , 2006, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[29]  Steven T. Walsh,et al.  Roadmapping a disruptive technology: A case study: The emerging microsystems and top-down nanosystems industry , 2004 .

[30]  E. Rosa.  The Social Amplification of Risk: The logical structure of the social amplification of risk framework (SARF): Meta theoretical foundations and policy implications , 2003 .

[31]  L. Cronbach.  Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[32]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The Future of Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation of Two Hypotheses , 2008 .

[33]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? , 2007 .

[34]  Robert A Freitas,et al.  What is nanomedicine? , 2005, Disease-a-month : DM.

[35]  B. Martin.  THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE FLUORIDATION CONTROVERSY , 1989 .

[36]  T. Guidotti,et al.  Applying the Precautionary Principle , 2012, Archives of environmental & occupational health.

[37]  Michael D. Mehta,et al.  From Biotechnology to Nanotechnology: What Can We Learn from Earlier Technologies? , 2004 .

[38]  C. Starr.  Social benefit versus technological risk. , 1969, Science.

[39]  Isabell M. Welpe,et al.  Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms , 2010 .

[40]  Tina Masciangioli,et al.  Environmental technologies at the nanoscale. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[41]  P. Bentler,et al.  Covariance structure analysis: statistical practice, theory, and directions. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[42]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Morality Information, Performance Information, and the Distinction Between Trust and Confidence1 , 2006 .

[43]  Sharon M. Friedman,et al.  Nanotechnology: risks and the media , 2005, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[44]  R Shepherd,et al.  What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[45]  V. Colvin.  The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[46]  L. Bredahl.  Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions With Regard to Genetically Modified Food – Results of a Cross-National Survey , 2001 .

[47]  Jonathan Jackson,et al.  Public attitudes to nanotech in Europe and the United States , 2004, Nature materials.

[48]  D. Tieleman,et al.  Computer simulation study of fullerene translocation through lipid membranes. , 2008, Nature nanotechnology.

[49]  Mei-Fang Chen,et al.  The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan , 2007 .

[50]  M. Radomski,et al.  Nanoparticles: pharmacological and toxicological significance , 2007, British journal of pharmacology.

[51]  Lang Tran,et al.  Safe handling of nanotechnology , 2006, Nature.

[52]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study , 1994 .

[53]  Gary L. Wells,et al.  Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods , 1996 .

[54]  Jonathan Jackson,et al.  Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States , 2005 .

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

[56]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory , 2003 .

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

[58]  Craig A. Poland,et al.  Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. , 2008, Nature nanotechnology.

[59]  K. Nielsen,et al.  Transgenic organisms—time for conceptual diversification? , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[60]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[61]  J. Lassen,et al.  Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. , 2004, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[62]  Kamilla Lein Kjølberg,et al.  Representations of Nanotechnology in Norwegian Newspapers — Implications for Public Participation , 2009 .

[63]  David D. Clarke,et al.  Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: How young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments , 2007 .

[64]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[65]  Steven T. Walsh,et al.  A theory of innovation for process-based innovations such as nanotechnology , 2008 .

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

[67]  Steven T. Walsh,et al.  Integrating Innovation and Learning Curve Theory: An Enabler for Moving Nanotechnologies and Other Emerging Process Technologies into Production , 2004 .

[68]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[69]  E. Oberdörster.  Manufactured Nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) Induce Oxidative Stress in the Brain of Juvenile Largemouth Bass , 2004, Environmental health perspectives.