Professor David M. Berube. Director PCOST; NCSU GES Research Scholar. NSA LAS Funded Investigator; US FDA RCAC. Manager, Center Emerging

Transcription

1 Professor David M. Berube. Director PCOST; NCSU GES Research Scholar. NSA LAS Funded Investigator; US FDA RCAC. Manager, Center Emerging Technologies, LLC. SoT Webinar, November 18, 2014

2 (1-- 7) Rank Nanomaterials Mean SD 1 Silver Titanium dioxide Silicon dioxide Zinc oxide Carbon nanotubes Iron & Iron oxides Aluminum oxide Nanoclays Cerium oxide Copper & copper oxides

3

4 Rank Nanomaterial application Mean SD 1 Zinc oxide: Electronics & optics Silver: Medical devices & treatments Cerium oxide: coatings, paints & pigments Aluminum oxide: Electronics & optics Titanium dioxide: Coatings, paints & pigments Zinc oxide: Medical devices & treatments Silicon dioxide: Automobile panels & displays Nanoclays: Automobile plastics & polymers Aluminum oxide: Coatings, paints & pigments Silicon dioxide: Catalysts

5 Rank Nanomaterial application Mean SD 11 Iron & iron oxides: Electronics & optics Copper & copper oxides: Electronics & optics Titanium dioxide: Cosmetics Carbon nanotubes: Electronics & optics Nanoclays: Other composites Carbon nanotubes: Composites Iron & iron oxides: Coatings, paints & pigments Copper & copper oxides: Coatings, paints & pigments 19 Silver: Coatings, paints & pigments Silver: Cosmetics & sunscreens

6 1. Experts may not be able to predict public concerned about nanoparticle risk profiles or may underestimate the capability of publics to understand the risk profile of a nanoparticle or nanomaterial. There is a phenomenon called EPoPP (expert perception of public perception) confounding expert predictions of publicly perceived/understood risk profiles of nanoparticles and nanomaterials. 2. The regulation hypothesis may not be true. RH = experts assess risk profiles differently because they have a better understanding d of the regulatory regimen governing a nanoparticle or nanomaterial. 3. There does not seem to be any discernible ibl algorithm experts use in determining the longitudinal risk profile of a nanoparticle or nanomaterial (today, 10 & 25 years)

7 DATA SET 2 PUBLICS VIEWS 1. Food additives. (4.52). 2. Pesticides, herbicides & fertilizers. (4.46). 3. Drugs. (4.22). 4. Community waste water treatment. (4.16). 5. Food packaging. g (4.16). 6. Cleaning products. (4.10). 7. Explosives. (4.05). 8. Toys and baby b products. (4.04) 9. Water filters. (3.90). 10. Paints and inks. (3.75).

8 DATA SET 3 PUBLIC VIEW BY EXPERTS 1. Cosmetics. (3.06). 2. Food additives. (3.67). 3. Sunscreens. (4.22). 4. Anything to do with carbon nanotubes. (4.65). 5. Nanobots. (6.0852). 6. Anti-microbial toys and baby products. (6.56). 7. Anti-microbial clothing. (7.00). 8. Food packaging. (7.06). 9. Pesticides and herbicides. (8.23). 10. Medicine. (8.50).

9 1. STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT EQUAL. 1. Public is generally disinterested (70%). Public is overwhelmingly disinterested in science and technology policy (90%). 2. Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive. 3. Engagement is not for everyone. Selfselection. Embrace the fact you will never succeed totally.

10 PERCEIVED RISKS OF NANO: AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS? Hart, CNS - NTFs

11 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF NANO: AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS?

12 2. ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES. 1. Audiences process frames through their own perceptual filters, i.e., audiences use religious beliefs, moral schema, etc. 2. Perceptions are just that the role of opinion attitude perception behavior. 3. Determine your audience (the 7-10 percent solution) and why: duty, funding (EPOPP), protestation, boycotts, and consumerism.

13 NISE AUDIENCES

14 SCIENCE TELEVISION Elite Audiences Positive Outc comes Mass Audiences Low Message Exposure High

15 3. THE PUBLIC IS NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE. 1. Defining the public, publics. 2. A day in the life of the public. Empathize with the day-to-day concerns of the public. The public is concerned about the economy, their jobs, and their families. The public is very concerned about their deaths. 3. Understand the Big Sort & digital communication.

16

17

18 The American landscape is undergoing a big sort with the general public forming communities of interest and opinions in regionally discrete areas. This effect is likely to be amplified as opinion nuclei become more extreme and attract more like-minded citizens (Bishop, 2008; Florida, 2008).

19 TV and Internet News Consumption % consum mption from ea ach medium TV 1998 TV 2008 WWW 1998 WWW Age Range

20 The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. 4. THE MORALITY ISSUE Which of the following best describes your views about nanotechnology? Scheufele et al, 2009 strongly or somewhat agree that nano is morally acceptable 40 t strongly l or somewhat ht disagree that nano is 30 morally acceptable I approve of nanotechnology as long as the usual levels of government regulation are in place. I approve of nanotechnology If it is more tightly regulated. I do not approve of nanotechnology except under very special circumstances. I do not approve of nanotechnology under any circumstances.

21 5. FRAMES Communication AND COUNTER-FRAMES Risk to the Public 1. Frames are not informational; they are evaluative. Franken-food. Bailout. Global warming. 2. Frames help people make sense of complicated information, esp. scientific and technological l ones. 3. Reframing. Next 3 slides Dietram Scheufele Structured t analytics. Next 3 slides - Dietram Scheufele Movement theory.

22 FRANKENFOOD

23 COMMUNICATING RISK (MEDICINE) NB: Rehabilitation.

24 COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLIC NB: Risk (alert) fatigue research

25 Public unconcerned about nano particles compared to other risks. Ranked 19/24. JNR 11

26

27 STS IMPACT MAPPING Map the societal variables against a test case. Justice: risk parity. Employment levels. Area/national gross product. Economic competitiveness. Wealth accumulation (rich-poor gap). Humanitarian needs. Sociocultural l disruptions. Quality of life.

28 AB

29 Theory of Planned Behavior B ~ I A B (w 1 ) + SN(w 2 ) + PBC(w 3 ) Ajzen proposed to explain (B) behavior and (I) intention as a function of (A B ) attitudes and beliefs toward the behavior, (SN) subjective norms pertaining to the behavior, and (PBC) perceived behavioral control. A B is one s attitude toward the behavior and that attitudes is the sum of belief strength (b i ) and belief evaluation (e i ). SN is the NB i salience of norm to others; MC i as one's motivation to comply; PBC is c i as the likelihood of a given control factor occurring; and p i as the power of the control factor to inhibit or facilitate behavior. These variables are weighted. See Fishbein i & Ajzan.

30 Relying on experts??? Experts needs to dialogue on societal issues with the public. Can axiologies be quantized systems? Yes, but. Should axiologies be quantized systems? Maybe not, but. Building algorithms to examine competing hypotheses open points of entry.

31 COM, GES, LAS & CRDM Hunt Library, Centennial Campus, NCSU