Introduction

Social scientists have begun to study what—if anything—regular citizens think about nanotechnology (Barnett et al. 2006), but these researchers have focused less on what nano-scale scientists and engineers think about their field. The current project provides evidence regarding what American researchers who have published research on nanotechnology view as the most important potential benefits and risks of nanotechnology-oriented research, as well as views about the current state of government regulation. It aims to provide insight into what those most directly involved in shaping nanotechnology see as the current state of research as well as their views about the future, and also provides the opportunity to observe which expert perceptions currently represent broadly shared consensus and which provoke a broader range of individual opinions.

The social scientific study of nanotechnology also provides the opportunity to learn about the more general relationship between emerging technologies and their societal context (the “public sphere”). Researchers interested in such issues have highlighted the importance of ensuring a democratic trajectory for nanotechnology (Macnaugthen et al. 2005). Of course, others have noted the potential benefits of avoiding the type of societal concern that accompanied the introduction of agricultural biotechnology to the marketplace (Einsiedel and Goldenberg 2006). While exploring the views of experts is useful in its own right, it may also prove informative to understand how the views of experts and those of the general public may be alike or different (e.g., Doble 1995). The present study represents an initial step towards such comparisons.

Below, we outline the recent literature on attitudes towards nanotechnology. The process used to develop a list of nanotechnology researchers for purposes of the present study is then described, along with details of the survey procedures. The survey results and a short discussion follow.

Literature review

At present, we know of no research that has systematically looked at the opinions of representative groups of scientists involved in nanotechnology research, especially in the US. In general, data on expert opinions have frequently been collected as part of technology assessment and foresight activities (Georghiou 1996; Joss and Belluci 2002) but rarely in research concerned with opinion more generally. Recent research involving nanotechnology did, however, look at a small (N = 46), non-comprehensive group of European nanotechnology experts and found that those experts see less risk than laypeople (Siegrist et al. 2007). With regard to biotechnology, what few studies do exist show that even experts can have divergent opinions. Scientists may generally be more optimistic than the public, but this does not mean that all scientists see only benefits (Priest 2000). Scientists have also been shown to worry about the nature and tone of media coverage in the case of biotechnology, with 25 of 30 British scientists contacted agreeing that media coverage of this topic was “overly dramatic and sensational” (Gunter et al. 1999).

Research on public opinion about nanotechnology highlights the range of views while also showing that Americans have a generally optimistic view about the potential personal and societal benefits of technological advance. Largely echoing research on biotechnology (Shanahan et al. 2001; Priest et al. 2003; Besley and Shanahan 2005; Gaskell et al. 2004), the key variables that researchers have examined, in this regard, include the relative risks and benefits of nanotechnology, alongside science knowledge, media attention, and views about those involved in scientific research. At present, the public opinion climate in the US for nanotechnology seems generally positive, more consistent with the pro-technology “bent” of American culture and less consistent with the recent historical course of agricultural biotechnology and stem cell research, for which a broad range of ethical, social, environmental and health concerns have been raised. In particular, a 2004 random sample survey supported the notion that Americans generally have an optimistic view of nanotechnology, with potential health benefits topping the list of key benefits and invasion of privacy and military uses emerging as key concerns. Many respondents, unsurprisingly, had no clear views, but a large number evinced low trust in business leaders to appropriately manage the technology (Macoubrie 2006; Cobb and Macoubrie 2004). This research was based on an exploratory internet survey (Bainbridge 2002).

Analysis of 2002/2003 Eurobarometer data and comparison data from the US similarly showed that Americans seem more optimistic about nanotechnology than Europeans, with almost half saying that such technologies will improve quality of life. Just a quarter of Europeans reported such optimism. Whereas only a quarter of Americans said they did not know anything about the likely impact of nanotechnology, half of Europeans gave this response (Gaskell et al. 2005). A comparison of US and Canadian survey data from 2005 notes, however, that the presence in both countries of several identifiable sub-groups who see few benefits to new technology may eventually present substantial challenges to wide-spread acceptance of nanotechnology (Priest 2006).

Several studies have also looked at media coverage of nanotechnology with their evidence suggesting that, as with biotechnology (Nisbet and Lewenstein 2002), the early stages of media coverage have proven largely positive. The emphasis of most of this coverage has been on technological innovation and potential benefits (Gorss et al. 2005; Stephens 2005). Initial research suggests that, if framing of nanotechnology were to become more negative, this could sway public opinion (Cobb 2005). Research on the role of the media in forming attitudes towards nanotechnology in the US has thus far demonstrated that individuals who use specialized science media tend to express greater individual-level support for nanotechnology (Scheufele and Lewenstein 2005). These researchers have also shown that views about scientists, particularly their trustworthiness, are important in the context of people’s views about nanotechnology (Lee et al. 2005). In other words, people who use specialized science media and who trust scientists are more positive in their views of nanotechnology than are others.

Method

Respondent selection

With regard to the participants of the current study, the goal was to identify scholars recently active in creating published research regarding some aspect of nanotechnology. “Nanoresearchers” are not a well-defined group since it is a cross-disciplinary field. In the language of survey research, there is no clear population from which to draw a random sample such as might be provided by drawing a sample from the membership of a single organization. Considering that our goal was to characterize the perspectives of currently active researchers in the field, we decided to employ a census approach rather than a sampling approach by attempting to identify as comprehensive as possible a group of active researchers during the period immediately preceding the survey and then inviting all of them to participate. We therefore used the ISI Web of KnowledgeSM database—what we believe to be the most interdisciplinary and comprehensive of the available science literature databases—to identify individuals recently publishing articles on nanotechnology. In effect, we defined “active researchers” as “researchers publishing in ISI listed journals.” We recognize that this census approach excludes those publishing only in non-ISI journals, as well as those who are not publishing at all, which constitute inherent limitations of our study.Footnote 1 We then contacted all corresponding authors with USA addresses.Footnote 2 To identify corresponding authors, we searched all databases and languages of the ISI Web of Science with “article” selected as the document type. The date searched was from January 1, 2004, to October 10, 2006, the day our contact list was created. Using the “article topic” search terms of nanotech* OR nanosci* yielded 1,840 total articles. Any article with a country other than the USA for the corresponding author’s address was removed. Most authors had an e-mail address listed. For those who did not or who had multiple e-mail addresses listed, their organization’s or institution’s website was used to identify the correct e-mail address. Not all e-mail addresses could be found.

For specialized populations such as the one explored here, such sampling procedures make the most sense and provide an excellent opportunity to report on what we believe is a core group of current nanotechnology experts based in the US, although not technically a sample. The final list contained 563 corresponding authors with at least a mailing address. Fifteen authors had bad addresses for both e-mail and mailing addresses, yielding 548 authors with at least one good address. We were able to identify valid email addresses for 462 respondents (that is, the emails were not returned as invalid in these cases).

Requests to participate were sent in three waves. First, a letter was sent on university letterhead requesting authors’ participation and giving them the survey website. This letter was followed up with an e-mail request one week later and a reminder e-mail 2 weeks after the first e-mail. The survey itself was web-based only. While all requests to participate included the survey’s internet address, no attempt was made to send hard-copy surveys since we presumed all US-based researchers would have internet access. (Only 15 respondents with invalid e-mail addresses also had invalid mailing addresses.) The invitation emails were all sent from an “.edu” account on an individual basis to avoid spam filters. The design of the website was kept simple with all of the questions appearing on a single page, and with each section appearing within a single table that contained the core question, relevant issue areas, and the available response categories. Respondents were not required to answer all questions.

In total, 177 usable surveys were completed. The most conservative response rate, based on having at least one form of contact information (either regular mail and e-mail) with the authors, was 32.3%. Of those for whom a working e-mail address was obtained, 38.1% responded. This is a reasonable response rate for a survey of this kind and resulted in an appropriately diverse sample. Of those who responded, 20.3% (N = 36) reported their highest degree is in engineering, 13.6% (N = 24) reported their highest degree is in chemistry, 18.1% (N = 32) in physics, 11.3% (N = 20) in some form of materials science, 18.6% (N = 33) in biology, 5.1% (N = 9) in social science or the humanities, and 2.3% (N = 4) in business or law. Some 5.6% (N = 10) did not indicate their degree area and 5.1% (N = 9) responded with a science degree that did not fit into one of the categories described above. This means that the bulk of the respondents (92.1%) came from some form of science background, not surprisingly. In terms of age, the survey used a variable based on the year in which each respondent’s degree was granted, which we felt was a better indicator of senior versus more junior status and less likely to go unanswered than a direct age question. Some 10.4% (N = 18) said they received their degree between 2002 and 2006 (the year of the survey), 19.1% (N = 33) earned their degree between 1997 and 2001, 18.5% (N = 32) earned their degree between 1992 and 1996, and 15.6% (N = 27) earned their degree between 1987 and 1991. The 36.4% (N = 63) who received their degree prior to 1987 were the largest group of respondents. Four respondents did not answer this question.

Questionnaire

The questions used in the survey emerged from open-ended interviews with eight nanotechnology researchers identified through a search of National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health grant databases. While other potential issues and future applications might be imagined that do not appear in our questionnaire, we limited our questions to the items that arose in these interviews in order to keep the survey instrument brief, thereby avoiding respondent fatigue (which would have been one possible source of lower response rates). Three graduate students then pre-tested the questionnaire for clarity and time.

The questions discussed below addressed (1) what areas respondents saw as the most important areas in nano-research; (2) what views respondents held about potential nanotechnology benefits; (3) what views they held about nanotechnology risks; (4) and their perspectives on regulation. (To avoid redundancy, the specific questions asked will be presented along with the results later in this paper.) Both means and standard deviations for each of our measures, as well as the frequencies (as percentages) for each category, are reported. Exploratory factor analyses using principal component analysis (PCA) and Varimax rotation were also conducted for each section of the survey. For those not familiar with this analytical strategy, such analyses enable researchers to look at the linear relationships among variables and assess whether patterns of responses exist within a group of measures. When such patterns exist, it makes sense to put the related variables together into a single variable (often referred to as a “factor,” as below). The averages and standard deviations for these new variables are included in each of the tables (see items labeled “Factor Mean” in all results tables). It is important to provide these means because the created variables were then used to explore the relationships among the various topics addressed in the study (e.g., the apparent correlation between perceived risks and perceived benefits), as well as with respondents’ areas of study and research experience. Because they are based on multiple questions, the newly created factor measurements (and their factor means) should have less measurement error and therefore be more reliable than a variable created from any single question.Footnote 3

In short, factor analysis of this type allows researchers to identify cases where the answers to a particular group of questions might best be thought of as reflecting a single underlying factor, and when they are not best thought of in this way. Variables were said to fit into a specific factor if they had a component score above .5 within just one, but not both, of the factors. Those that did not meet this criterion were not included in the summative factors. Cronbach’s alpha—a measure of internal reliability—is reported for any created factor containing three or more variables. A Pearson’s correlation co-efficient is reported for factors with just two variables. The names given to the factors must be chosen by the researcher and are meant to summarize the component variables.

While probability or p-values are reported for reference for the reported correlations, the argument can be made that inferential statistics are not relevant to census data. If we treat the group of respondents here as a census rather than a sample, all observed relationships would be considered significant; it is not necessary or meaningful to estimate statistical significance reflecting how accurately observed results might represent results obtainable from the entire population. However, the values are still reported as reference for readers accustomed to referring to them.

Results

Nanotechnology risks, benefits, and regulation

The first set of questions analyzed presented a number of areas of nanotechnology research and asked respondents to indicate how important these are to “current nanotechnology research and development.” Of the nine areas assessed, those associated with carbon nanotubes and quantum dots fit together as a single factor (r = .76, p > .00) and were rated as the most important (Table 1). The next two areas where the respondents saw the greatest importance were in the areas of chemical sensors and computer circuitry, respectively. Both of these variables were highly correlated with both of the factors that emerged from the analysis. They are therefore treated separately and not included in either of the new factors created based on the factor analysis. The variable related to “targeted drug delivery” was the next most highly ranked item. It fit together well with five other variables related to medical and biological uses of nanotechnology (α = .89). In general, most of the respondents reported either neutral or positive views about the importance of most areas of research.

Table 1 “How important do you believe each of [the following] is to current nanotechnology research and development?” (Rated on a 5-point scale.)
Full size table

The next group of questions assessed dealt with the potential benefits of nanotechnology. Similar to the procedure above, scientists then were asked to rank the importance of several potential nanotechnology benefits (Table 2). The respondents clearly indicated that they perceive the most benefits will come in areas of health and technology, with the variables for health and medical benefits factoring together with variables related to new materials and computing (α = .79). Three variables associated with food and the environment also factored together (α = .84), with relatively lower means for these variables suggesting that the respondents saw them as of secondary importance. The variable related to energy production did not clearly fit into either of the two factors that emerged from the benefits factor analysis. In terms of mean, it ranked in importance between the variables for the two previously noted factors.

Table 2 “How important do you believe nanotechnology’s benefits will be for society over the next 20 years in each of the following areas?” (Rated on a 5-point scale.)
Full size table

Based on their average ratings, the scientists surveyed generally rate the risks of nanotechnology substantially lower than the benefits. While the risk and benefit items are not exactly comparable, mean ratings for only two of ten risk items are above 3.00 and none is above 4.00, whereas mean ratings for all seven benefit ratings are above 3.00 and three of the seven are above 4.00. The two areas of highest concern were with regard to human health risk and the potential use of nanotechnology in weapons. In terms of underlying commonalities between the variables, the human health risk was closely associated with animal and environmental risks (α = .92). All but one of the other variables seemed to tap into a factor related to social justice (α = .81). Beyond concern about weapons, the potential for nanotechnology to increase the global divide between rich and poor was deemed by respondents as the most important risk within this factor, though the average was still slightly less than 3.00 on the five-point scale. The risk of increased prices was rated as of relatively low importance and it did not clearly fit within either one of the two factors (Table 3).

Table 3 “How important do you believe nanotechnology’s risks will be for society over the next 20 years in each of the following areas?” (Rated on a 5-point scale.)
Full size table

Beyond risks and benefits, it also seemed relevant to assess experts’ perspectives on the importance and quality of regulation in areas related to nanotechnology research, especially given the current concern at both federal and state levels with how to adapt the current regulatory system to cover this new area. The first group of questions related to the importance of having regulations. The factor structure of scientists’ responses here was similar to that reported for their responses on perceived risks. As might be expected, respondents see a need for regulation most clearly in those areas where they see the most risk, including issues related to human and animal health and protection of the natural environment. The variables for the questions assessing attitudes on these issues were highly inter-correlated (α = .95). For all three variables, more than 50% of respondents reported that regulation was “important” or “very important.” The social justice-oriented variables were also highly inter-correlated (α = .95), with weapons regulation and privacy protection emerging as areas where scientists saw the most need for regulation. The area where scientists saw the least need for direct government intervention was with regard to job loss. As above, the variable assessing regulation to manage potential increased costs could have fit within either of the factors. It was therefore not included in either of the composite variables (Table 4).

Table 4 “How important do you believe it is to have regulations to control nanotechnology’s risk in each of the following areas?” (Rated on a 5-point scale.)
Full size table

While two factors emerged when asked about the importance of regulation, scientists’ views about the adequacy of current regulations were consistent across issue areas. All eight questions fell into the same factor to create a factor with high internal validity (α = .94). Also, for all eight variables, the average rating was below the scale mid-point. This may suggest that nano-researchers believe that, on average, current regulations are inadequate. Health (human and animal), environmental, and privacy concerns were seen as the areas with the least adequate regulations, but not by a wide margin (Table 5).

Table 5 “How adequate do you believe curren t US regulations are for controlling nanotechnology’s risks in each of the following areas?” (Rated on a 5-point scale.)
Full size table

A number of interesting relationships also emerged when looking at the relationships between the factors created by our factor analyses (Table 6). In particular, as would be expected, those who saw nanotechnology as important also responded that they saw more benefits. The “Health and Biology Importance” factor from Table 1 was positively associated with the “Environmental Benefits” and “Health and Technological Benefits” factors from Table 2. The “Technology Importance” variable from Table 1 was also positively associated with “Environmental Benefits” and “Health and Technological Benefits” from Table 2. Perceived “Environmental Benefits” were related to an increased perception of “Social Risk.” There was no substantial relationship between perceived benefits and need for regulation. However, “Health and Technological Benefits” were positively related to the adequacy of existing regulations.

Table 6 Correlations between nanotechnology factors
Full size table

Risk perceptions were also linked to the perceived importance and adequacy of regulation. “Health and Environmental Risk” perceptions were highly associated with both a perceived need for “Health and Environmental Regulation,” as well as a smaller relationship with perceived need for “Social Regulation.” Similarly, perceived “Social Risk” was highly linked to perceived need for “Social Regulation,” with a smaller relationship to need for “Health and Environmental Regulation.” Both “Health and Environmental Risk” and “Social Risk” were negatively associated with perceived adequacy of current regulation. Perceived need for “Health and Environmental Regulation” and “Social Regulation” were also negatively related to perceptions of the adequacy of current regulation.

Looking at demographics—such as degree area and when respondents received their degree—revealed several additional relationships worth noting. In looking at the types of degrees held by respondents, it was clear that those involved in physics and chemistry saw much less “Health and Environmental Risk” and “Social Risk.” Such researchers also saw less need for “Social Regulation.” Conversely, those in the sample with a focus on social science or a humanities-oriented research saw more “Social Risk” and more need for “Social Regulation.”

Self-identification as working in either biological sciences or engineering was unrelated to any of the factors discussed above. The year in which respondents reported receiving the degree was also unrelated to any of the created variables.

Discussion

The scientists surveyed for this study reported that they expect a wide range of nanotechnologies will likely prove important in the years ahead in a range of areas. Quantum dots and nanotubes emerged as the technologies perceived most likely to be important in coming years, but there also appears to be substantial hope that nanotechnology research will enable advances in areas ranging from computing to health care delivery. Such optimism may be both expected and self-serving, but it also emphasizes the excitement of those in the field for a broad range of applications. It is also noteworthy that the survey points to the existence of a substantial number of researchers—lead authors who are actively involved in nanotechnological research—who see little importance and few benefits for some specific technologies or areas of research.

Also, while health and technological benefits were identified as more important than environmental benefits, health and technology are areas that tend to receive substantial funding and, in consequence, likely produce the most publications. This emphasis on the health and technological benefits may therefore reflect the areas in which the respondents are themselves working.

When it came to risks, only two of the issues assessed here had an average greater than the mid-point of the possible range, but, again, substantial numbers agreed (or strongly agreed) that nanotechnology risks would likely prove important in the years ahead. While the mean was low, less than a third were willing to say that health risks would be unimportant and less than a quarter said that they saw the potential risk of nanotechnology use in weapons as unimportant. These results suggest that, even within the nanotechnology community, substantial concern exists alongside optimism.

With regard to uncertainty, it also seems noteworthy that between a quarter and a third of respondents provided a neutral response when asked most of the questions described above. The only area where there was broad, optimistic agreement was in regards to the potential benefits of nanotechnology for health-care delivery, as well as for materials development, computing, and energy production.

The factor analytic component of the current study also highlights the structure of views about nanotechnology risk. Respondents differentiated between traditionally recognized health and environmental risks and risks linked to issues of social justice. The correlational results further show that perceiving such “non-traditional” social justice risks is highly related to a sense that it is important to address these non-traditional risks through regulation.

With regard to regulations, it appears that many of the scientists involved see a need to appropriately manage potential risks. The priority for regulation seems to be in the areas of health and environmental regulation, with scientists also indicating that current regulations in these areas may not be adequate. The fact that a substantial number of active nanotechnology researchers feel that regulations are both important and less than adequate is worth underscoring. Given the current hodgepodge of regulation in the US (Berube 2006; Mills 2006), these results may provide support to those who hope regulators will devote adequate resources to addressing potential downsides of nanotechnology. Of course, the need for regulation does not take away from the benefits that the survey respondents also highlighted and, given their identity as leading researchers, are seeking to achieve.

Future research should seek to compare the responses of experts to samples of other Americans. This could include, for example, citizens who have spent time learning and deliberating about nanotechnology with experts (e.g., Toumey 2006) as well as samples drawn from the general population. Doing such follow-up research would allow exploration of the degree to which experts and non-experts think about nanotechnology in similar and different ways, both in terms of risks and benefits and in terms of priorities for regulation.