Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Avoiding the Trust Deficit: Public Engagement, Values, the Precautionary Principle and the Future of Nanotechnology

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Debates about the regulatory requirements surrounding the introduction of nanotechnology products have, at least in Australia, remained largely within disciplinary boundaries and industry and academic circles. This paper argues for a more interdisciplinary and inclusive upstream debate about the introduction of ethical, regulatory and legal frameworks that may avoid the loss of public trust that has characterised the introduction of many new technologies in the past. Insights from risk-perception theory and research are used to introduce the notion of risk as narrative as a framework for action. This paper suggests three main strategies for moving forward; drawing insights from the “trust gap” experiences of other new technologies; the application of the active form of the precautionary principle; and, the creation of nano-futures that meet both community and industry values through effective public engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alaszewski, A., and P. Brown. 2007. Risk, uncertainty and knowledge. Health Risk & Society 9(1):1–10. doi:10.1080/13698570601183033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Centre for Emerging Technologies & Society. 2007. The Swinburne national technology and society monitor 2007. Melbourne, Australia.

  • Balzano, Q., and A.R. Sheppard. 2002. The influence of the precautionary principle on science-based decision-making: Questionable applications to risks of radiofrequency fields. Journal of Risk Research 5(4):351–369. doi:10.1080/13669870210154485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrieu, P., and B. Sinclair-Desgagne. 2006. On precautionary policies. Management Science 52(8):1145–1154. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Wiltshire, Great Britain: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., W. Bonss, and C. Lau. 2003. The theory of reflexive modernization. Theory, Culture & Society 20(2):1–33. doi:10.1177/0263276403020002001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMRB Social Research. 2004. Nanotechnology: Views of the general public. London: BMRB.

  • Bowman, D., and K. Ludlow. 2009. Filling the information void: Using public registries as a tool in nanotechnologies regulation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6(1):26–36. doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9134-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, B. 2003. Participation in nanotechnology: Methods and challenges. http://www.bryanbruns.com/bruns-p2nano.pdf (Accessed 10 January 2009).

  • Burgess, A. 2002. Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts. Health Risk & Society 4(2):175–188. doi:10.1080/13698570220137051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, A. 2004. Cellular phones, public fears, and a culture of precaution. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgi, B.R., and T. Pradeep. 2006. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology in developing countries. Current Science 90(5):645–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, M.D., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6:395–405. doi:10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2000. White paper on food safety. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling, Marsha J. Tayson. 2006. Gender, new technologies and development. Development 49(4):23–27. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, L., and S. McKay. 1996. Structures and strategies: An introduction to academic writing. South Melbourne: MacMillan Education Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, P., and D. Buchanan. 2005. The way it really happened: Competing narratives in the political process of technological change. Human Relations 58(7):845–865. doi:10.1177/0018726705057807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deblonde, M., M. Van Oudheusen, J. Evers, and L. Goorden. 2008. Co-creating nano-imaginaries: report of a Delphi-Exercise. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 28(5):372–389. doi:10.1177/0270467608322591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, H., and R. Schibeci. 2003. Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science 12(4):381–401. doi:10.1177/0963662503124004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. 1992. Risk and blame—essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1982a. How can we know the risks we face? Why risk selection is a social process. Risk Analysis 2(2):49–58. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01365.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky. 1982b. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einsiedel, Edna. 2005. In the public eye: The early landscape of nanotechnology among Canadian and the U.S. Publics. Journal of Nanotechnology Online, 1 (December 2005).

  • European Commission. 2005. Social values, science and technology. 225/Wave 63.1—TNS Opinion & Social. Brussels: European Commission.

  • Faunce, Thomas, Katherine Murray, Hitoshi Nasu, and Diana Bowman. 2008. Sunscreen safety: The precautionary principle, the Australian therapeutic goods administration and nanoparticles in sunscreens. NanoEthics 2(3):231–240. doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0041-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M.L., and J.L. Holup. 2006. Risk as value: Combining affect and analysis in risk judgments. Journal of Risk Research 9(2):141–164. doi:10.1080/13669870500166930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, Melissa L., and Theresa A. Satterfield. 2005. Risk as narrative value: a theoretical framework for facilitating the biotechnology debate. International Journal of Biotechnology 7(1,2,3):128–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M.L., A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S.M. Johnson. 2000. The Affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13:1–17. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, R. 2002. Clinical governance and governmentality. Health Risk & Society 4(2):155–173. doi:10.1080/13698570220137042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, J. 2003. Nuclear stigma. In The social amplification of risk, ed. N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, 326–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J. 2003. Trust, transparency, and social context: implications for social amplification of risk. In The social amplification of risk, ed. N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, 123–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth Australia & Friends of the Earth United States. 2006. Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: Small ingredients, big risks [online]. http://nano.foe.org.au [Accessed Jan 2009].

  • Fyfe, M. 2008. Holidaying feds leave bathers waiting for suspect sunscreen list. Age. December 28.

  • Gaskell, G., T. Ten Eyck, J. Jackson, and G. Veltri. 2005. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science 14:81–90. doi:10.1177/0963662505048949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R., and P. Slovic. 1997. A constructive approach to environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 21:175–181. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00104-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP). 2000. Mobile phones and health. In Chairman, independent expert group on mobile phones, ed. W. Stewart. Chilton, UK: National Radiological Protection Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Invernizzi, N., and G. Foladori. 2006. Nanomedicine, poverty and development. Development 49(4):114–118. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D., and D. Wartenburg. 2001. The precautionary principle and electric and magnetic fields. American Journal of Public Health 91(9):1355–1358. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.9.1355.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D.M., P. Slovic, D. Braman, J. John Gastil, and Geoffrey Cohen. 2007. Nanotechnoogy Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Law School.

  • Kasperson, R.E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H.S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J.X. Kasperson, and S. Ratick. 1998. The importance of the media and the social amplification of risk - the social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. In Risk and modern society, ed. R.E. Lofstedt, and L. Frewer, 149–162. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. 2006. Crime and risk. In Risk in social science, ed. P. Taylor-Gooby, and J.O. Zinn, 94–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriebel, D., and J. Tickner. 2001. Reenergising public health through precaution. American Journal of Public Health 91(9):1351–1355. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.9.1351.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leggett, M., and M. Finlay. 2001. Science, story, and image: A new approach to crossing the communication barrier posed by scientific jargon. Public Understanding of Science 10(2):157–171. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/10/2/301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G.F., E.U. Weber, C. Hsee, and N. Welch. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin 127(2):267–286. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lofstedt, R. 2003. Risk communication: Pitfalls and promises. European Review 11(3):417–435. doi:10.1017/S106279870300036X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lofstedt, R.E. 2005. Risk management in post-trust societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D., and J. Tulloch. 2002. Risk is part of your life: Risk epistemologies among a group of Australians. Sociology 36(2):317–334. doi:10.1177/0038038502036002005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGibbon, Ainslie. 2008. Slip, slop, slap in the face: Concern over sunscreen chemicals. The Sydney Morning Herald, December 4.

  • Macnaghten, P., M.B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27(2):268–291. doi:10.1177/1075547005281531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie, J. 2006. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science 15:221–241. doi:10.1177/0963662506056993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Market Attitude Research Services. 2008. Australian community attitudes held about nanotechnology - trends 2005-2008 [online]. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Pages/NanotechnologyPublications.aspx [Accessed 19 Nov 2008].

  • McDaniels, T.L. 1998. Ten propositions for untangling descriptive and prescriptive lessons in risk perception findings. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 59(1):129–134. doi:10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00133-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mekel, M. 2006. Nanotechnologies: Small science, big potential and bigger issues. Development 49(4):47–53. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, A. 2006. Food security: Empty promises of technological solutions. Development 49(4):33–38. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mnyusiwalla, A., A. Daar, and P.A. Singer. 2003. “Mind the gap”: Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14:R9–R13. doi:10.1088/0957-4484/14/3/201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, P. 2006. Hype and hope: A past and future perspective on new technologies for development. Development 49(4):16–22. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, Kirsten. 2008. Nano-tech sunscreen presents potential health risk. ABC News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. December 18.

  • Palfreman, J. 2006. A tale of two fears: Exploring media depictions of nuclear power and global warming. Review of Policy Research 23(1):23–43. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00184.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phoenix, C., and M. Treder. 2006. Applying the precautionary principle to nanotechnology [online]. Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. Available from: http://www.crnano.org/precautionary.htm [Accessed 2006].

  • Pidgeon, N., and Tee Rogers-Hayden. 2007. Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or “upstream engagement”? Health Risk & Society 9(2):191–210. doi:10.1080/13698570701306906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N., R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic. 2003. The social amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, Susanna Hornig., Heinz Bonfadelli, and M Rusanen. 2003. The “trust gap” hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis 23(4):751–766. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls, W. Poortinga, and N.F. Pidgeon. 2008. Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science 17(4):419–441. doi:10.1177/0963662506075351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T. 2004. Risk lived, stigma experienced: Reflections on the limits of adaptions. In Risk, media, and stigma—Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology, ed. J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and H. Kunreuther, 269–86. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T., P. Slovic, and R. Gregory. 2000. Narrative valuation in a policy judgment context. Ecological Economics 34:315–331. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00177-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schibeci, R., J. Harwood, and H. Dietrich. 2006. Community involvement in biotechnology policy? The Australian experience. Science Communication 27(3):429–445. doi:10.1177/1075547005285066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. 1999. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29:2093–2106. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02297.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20(2):195–203. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., and G. Cvetkovich. 2000. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust. Risk Analysis 20(5):713–719. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., G.T. Cvcetkovich, and H. Gutscher. 2001. Shared values, social trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk Analysis 21(6):1047–1053. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.216173.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., C. Keller, and H.A.L. Kiers. 2005. A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis 25(1):211–222. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis 19(4):689–701.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., M.L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D.G. MacGregor. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis 24(2):311–322. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. 2001. ESTO project report: On science and precaution in the management of technological risk; vol. 11, case studies. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies and ESTO.

  • Swiestra, T., and A. Rip. 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1(1):3–20. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0005-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, Y. 2004. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Analysis 24(6):1575–1583. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00551.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tegart, G. 2006. Environmental, social, legal and ethical aspects of the development of nanotechnologies in Australia. Parkville: National Academies Forum.

  • Tickner, J., C. Raffensberger, and N. Myers. 1999. The precautionary principle in action - a handbook. Science and Environmental Health Network. http://www.sehn.org/rtfdocs/handbook-rtf.rtf.

  • Timotijevic, Lada and Julie Barnett. 2006. Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: public understandings of precautionary action and advice. Health, Risk and Society 8(2): 143–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toumey, C.P. 2006. Narratives for nanotech: Anticipating public reactions to nanotechnology. In Nanotechnology challenges: Implications for philosophy, ethics and society, ed. J. Schummer, and D. Baird, 383–411. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulloch, J., and D. Lupton. 2003. Risk and everyday life. London: Sage Publications.

  • United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 1992. Rio declaration on environment and development. Rio de Janeiro: UNEP.

  • Weckert, J. 2007. Editorial. NanoEthics 1(1):1–2. doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0009-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann, P.M., and H. Schutz. 2005. The precautionary principle and risk perception: experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(4):402–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann, P.M., A.T. Thalmann, M.A. Grutsch, and H. Schutz. 2006. The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust. Journal of Risk Research 9(4):361–372. doi:10.1080/13669870600802111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze - a reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment and modernity—Towards a new ecology, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44–83. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology 50(3):459–477. doi:10.1177/0011392102050003010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank and acknowledge Michael Abramson, Brian Priestly and Evie Katz for their support for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Heath and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred, Level 3, Burnet Building, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia

    Margaret Stebbing

Authors
  1. Margaret Stebbing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret Stebbing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stebbing, M. Avoiding the Trust Deficit: Public Engagement, Values, the Precautionary Principle and the Future of Nanotechnology. Bioethical Inquiry 6, 37–48 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9142-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9142-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation