What do the public think of nano?
As has been seen for other new or controversial technologies, such as genetically modified crops or nuclear power, public attitudes play a crucial role in making it possible to realise the potential of technological advances.
As yet little research has been done into public attitudes to nanotechnologies. Initial surveys indicate that levels of awareness of these technologies are low, suggesting that much will hinge upon how attitudes to them are shaped over the next few years.
The UK
In an opinion poll, carried out by BMRB for the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering joint working group on nanotechnology, just 29 per cent of the public claimed to have heard of nanotechnology, while only 19 per cent could give some definition of it, whether accurate or not.
Of those who are able to offer a definition, 68 per cent were optimistic about future prospects. People looked forward to smaller computers, and better performance and usability. Participants were excited by the medical possibilities arising from nanotechnology, and also responded favourably to potential uses in materials and cosmetics.
However, greater miniaturisation due to nanotechnology also prompted suspicions about the use of surveillance equipment and loss of privacy, while others expressed concerns about how much the development of nanotechnology would cost the UK.
Participants drew a parallel with GM when considering the ethical implications of nanotechnology. Both were thought to involve changes at fundamental levels, forming things that do not occur in nature. Both GM and nanotechnology could be seen as 'messing with nature'.
Participants were very positive towards potential uses of nanotechnology in medicine, particularly in terms of earlier diagnosis and treatments. However, they also had concerns about the long-term potential side-effects of nanotechnology, and about its reliability.
Participants felt strongly that nanotechnology should be regulated. Although the respondents suggested various bodies as potential regulators, they were divided over the extent to which the public should be involved. While supportive of the principle of public consultation, they were not convinced that the public voice would be listened to.
Elsewhere…
In Germany, for comparison, nanotechnology is similarly not well known, but attitudes are again currently favourable. In one study, 74 per cent of people had not heard of nano, compared to 44 per cent genetics and 34 per cent nuclear technology. Only 10 per cent feared that there may be a risk associated with nanotechnology.
In a national survey in the USA, more than 80 per cent of those polled said they had heard "little" or "nothing" about nanotechnology. Even so, 40 per cent of respondents thought that benefits outweighed risks, and another 38 per cent believed risks and benefits of nanotechnology would be about equal. Only 22 per cent said risks outweighed the benefits.
The most commonly cited concerns were loss of personal privacy, a nanotechnology-inspired arms race, nanoparticle damage to health, and its possible impact on US jobs and industry.