HomeAbout SRAMembersEventsNewsletterJournalsOpportunitiesResourcesContact

Back to 2009 Meeting Main Page

Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2009

Risk Analysis: The Evolution of a Science

Session Schedule & Abstracts

* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.

Common abbreviations

W1-I Nanonews 1: Risk Perception and Nanotechnology Room: Pride of Baltimore   8:30-10:00 AM

Chair(s): Sharon Friedman

W1-I.1  8:30  Is no nano risk news good news? Friedman SM*, Egolf BP; Lehigh University   smf6@lehigh.edu Abstract: Events that are timely and newsworthy drive news coverage of most subjects and nanotechnology is no exception. News about nanotechnology has been prevalent since the late 1990s in both the popular press and on web sites. Most early coverage was based on the “gee whiz” wonders people could expect from this developing technology. As more scientific studies about environmental and health risks became available, they drew media coverage, with articles increasing from 2004 to 2006. Calls for regulation of these risks also increased and appeared more frequently in news stories in the U.S. and the U.K. during this time. After reaching a modest pinnacle in 2006, however, the number of articles about nanotechnology risk and regulation dropped despite continued increases in newsworthy activities related to nanotechnology risks. To explore reasons for both the rise and fall in media articles, this paper focuses on coverage of important news-making events in the development of nanotechnology risk issues including major scientific papers, governmental and nongovernmental reports, and regulatory calls and actions to try to discern why some events received more coverage than others. This new aspect of our longitudinal study of U.S. and U.K. newspaper and wire service coverage from 2000 to 2008 also will explore reasons behind the diminishing coverage of nanotechnology in the popular press based on interviews with reporters and their news sources. In addition, it will discuss measures of U.S. and U.K. media coverage of nanotechnology’s environmental and health risks and regulatory issues in 2008 compared to previous years.

W1-I.2  8:50  Evaluating Nanotechnology Regulation Attitudes Using Proportional Odds Regression Model. Greenhalgh TJ*, Priest SH; University of Nevada, Las Vegas (TJ & SH)   ted.greenhalgh@unlv.edu Abstract: Even though public opinion polls regularly ask about the need for regulation, especially when regulatory practices have led to a recent “crisis”, not much research has been directed at understanding how the public’s perception of regulation forms or how it can change. Risk perception literature probably offers little promise as these same opinion polls often show perceived need for regulation is much different (usually higher) than the perception of the risk being regulated. Even though regulatory government agencies like the FDA and EPA use “best science” for determining the need for regulation, and not public opinion, public reactions can greatly delay approval of new tech through legal and political challenges. There are several historical precedents when “best science” had already considered a technology “safe” that, in turn, the U.S. public rejected anyway e.g. food irradiation, GMOs, and nuclear power. Most nanotechnology products remain untested with the “downstream” science community (those responsible for testing, regulation, and understanding public acceptance) playing catch-up with “upstream” scientists who are developing and bringing nanoproducts into the marketplace. Using an ongoing two-year panel study of 76 South Carolina resident’s attitudes about nanotechnology offers a glimpse into how they formed their opinions about regulating this emerging technology. Even though the panel wasn’t randomly selected, their initial attitudes towards nanotechnology were like those of other people randomly selected in national surveys, in that they were mostly positive about the new technology, but knew very little about it. By evaluating the initial and two follow-up panel surveys using proportional odds model regression, a picture of the major influences that affected the panelist’s regulation perceptions emerged showing a increasing power relationship between media consumption variables, inter-personal communication variables, and demographic variables.

W1-I.3  9:10  Tracking online behavior after exposure to news of a local nanotechnology risk: A Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) Model approach. Hillback ED*, Dudo AD, Tsai JY, Dunwoody S, Brossard D, Scheufele D; University of Wisconsin-Madison   edhillback@wisc.edu Abstract: This study is a 2x2 experiment within a computer survey about nanotechnology in local news. Its goal is to bolster theoretical and practical understanding of the Risk Information Seeking and Processing Model (RISP). While the RISP model (Griffin et al., 1999) investigates what motivates people to learn more about potential risks, the information-seeking dependent variable in much RISP research has been operationalized as self-reported intent to seek information. Thus, we contribute to this research by empirically tracking participants online information seeking. The survey comprises five sections: A pretest measures attitudes toward science and Internet news, information processing potential, relevant hazard experience, and demographics. Participants (undergrads at a large Midwestern university) then read a fictitious news story about antibacterial cleaning products containing nanoparticles being used in campus buildings. Four story versions manipulate the severity of potential health risks (high / low) and students level of efficacy in risk avoidance (high / low). Posttest 1 measures affective reactions, risk perceptions, feelings of efficacy, perceived ability to gather risk information, attitudes toward nanotechnology, and trust in experts. A pause in the survey provides an opportunity for participants to surf the Web; we track pages visited and time spent per page. Posttest 2 revisits the posttest 1 variables to assess any impact of information gathering on emotions, attitudes, and risk perception. Research questions focus on two areas: First, how do information seekers differ in RISP Model predictors of information seeking from those who opt out? Second, of those who seek information, what type of information do they seek? Does this information affect their attitudes and risk perception? Preliminary data with a small sample show manipulation effects and suggest RISP predictors encourage information seeking. Data from full experiment available by SRA meeting.

W1-I.4  9:30  Envisioning emerging nanotechnologies: Results of a three-year panel study. Priest SH*, Greenhalgh T; University of Nevada, Las Vegas   susanna.priest@unlv.edu Abstract: This presentation describes results from a three-year panel study of 76 South Carolina citizens with respect to their views on nanotechnology, designed to explore how they are forming opinions over time. Baseline qualitative results from depth interviews with all study participants completed in 2007 had suggested that they did not begin with distinct mental models of what nanotechnology is or how it might work, but drew from a generalized “template” of expectations about technology in discussing their views. These include the expectation that technologies carry risks alongside benefits. While dramatic shifts of public opinion regarding nanotechnology’s risks and benefits and the perceived need for regulation have not yet occurred based on results for 2008 and early 2009 (and may never occur due to the technology’s apparent low salience for many individuals), the quantitative results over the past two years reveal some opinion drift in terms of both risk perceptions and perceived need for regulation. Meanwhile, further analysis of the qualitative data has suggested a more fine-grained picture. Parallel to what has been found in national opinion studies, these respondents were largely unaware of existing nanotechnology products, but the idea struck them as mostly positive. Medical benefits were the most common benefits anticipated, whereas generic unknown or unforeseen consequences are the most commonly anticipated risks. Contrary to previous focus group results, most respondents did associate ethical issues with nanotechnology, often along the lines of science being out of control or corrupt in some way. Social justice issues were also highlighted, with private businesses most often seen as benefitting from the technology, while poor, uneducated, or lower class people (alongside workers, including researchers) bear most of the risks. Nevertheless, 84% of the panel still felt that nanotechnology represents a wise investment.

[back to schedule]