Re-create an outline of the article provided for this week’s assignment.? What guideline/outline would the authors of this ar

PERSPECTIVES

What is the problem? A literature review on challenges facing the communication of nanotechnology to the public

Åsa Boholm & Simon Larsson

Received: 18 January 2019 /Accepted: 4 April 2019 /Published online: 23 April 2019 # The Author(s) 2019

Abstract Ethical and societal issues concerning justice, safety, risks, and benefits are well-established topics in the discourses of nanotechnology innovation and devel- opment. That nanotechnology innovation should be so- cially and ethically responsible is generally accepted by scientists, policymakers, regulators, and industry, and the idea of public involvement and communication is part and parcel of the conceptualization of responsible technology development. This paper systematically re- views the social science research literature accumulated between 2002 and 2018 on the communication of nano- technology. A critical and constructivist perspective on policy problems guides the analysis. Two questions are asked of this literature: what problems are identified regarding the communication of nanotechnology to the public? How can these problems be managed and/or resolved? Three different problem themes are identified: the public, societal institutions, and nanotechnology itself. While for some identified problems, there are corresponding solutions; in other instances, there is little alignment between problems and solutions. In conclu- sion, the paper recommends that in communicating

nanotechnology to the public: (i) the objectives of com- munication should be defined; (ii) previous research should be used responsibly; (iii) communication strate- gies should be adapted to the context; and (iv) effort should not be spent trying to develop a generic frame- work for communication.

Keywords Responsible innovation . Nanotechnology.

Science communication . Upstream engagement .

Literature review

Introduction

When nanotechnology hype began to mount almost two decades ago, it was readily recognized that to reach its full revolutionary potential, nanotechnology develop- ment had to be Bresponsible^ (Macnaghten 2010; Pidgeon et al. 2011). The gigantic National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), established in the year 2000 in the United States (US), declared that Bnanotechnology is helping to considerably improve, even revolutionize, many technology and industry sec- tors: information technology, energy, environmental sci- ence, medicine, homeland security, food safety, and transportation, among many others^ (NNI 2018a). The responsible development of nanotechnology that ad- dresses the ethical, legal, and societal issues (ELSI) of nanotechnology is one of the NNI’s four objectives, understood to advance the other, i.e., research, commer- cialization, worker education, and public engagement. The way ELSI is addressed is assumed to determine

J Nanopart Res (2019) 21: 86 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-019-4524-3

Å. Boholm (*) School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 115, SE 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]

S. Larsson Gothenburg Research Institute, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 603, SE 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]

public trust and the future of innovation driven by nanotechnology (NNI 2018b).

The NNI has served as a role model for other countries aspiring to compete in cutting-edge nanotechnology devel- opment. The responsible development of technology is currently a widely accepted ideal in European Union (EU) research and innovation policies (Coenen 2016). It is generally accepted by scientists, policymakers, regula- tors, and industry that issues concerning environmental impact, health, and safety should be addressed responsibly, ensuring that any new technology benefits society. ELSI has therefore become an important consideration in inno- vation (Coenen 2016). According to this ideal of technol- ogy innovation, the societal need for technology, technol- ogy regulation, and risk management and safety, as well as ethical implications must be thoroughly addressed (Pidgeon et al. 2011: 1696).

The ideal of the responsible development of nanotech- nology implies sensitivity to public perceptions and public trust at an early stage of technology development (Breggin and Carothers 2006). Responsible technology develop- ment is further understood to have the capacity to counter- act failure due to public lack of acceptance of, or opposi- tion to, new technology. Already at an early stage of innovation, US scientists and policymakers worried that the public might turn against nanotechnology (Friedman and Egolf 2005). This is what happened in Europe with genetically modified organisms (GMOs): concern over risk and the lack of trust in science, experts, and regulators were factors that turned the public against the technology as such, the industry, and the products (Wynne 2001). For history not to repeat itself in the form of public distrust of regulatory agencies and scientific experts, consumer boy- cotts of products and companies, citizen pressure on policymakers and regulators, and amplification of risks in the media, foresight and sensitivity to public concern have been recurrent mantras regarding the development of nanotechnology (Sylvester et al. 2009). It has been argued that developers and industry, as well as policymakers and regulators, must be aware of possible public concerns and of the societal dynamics of media and interest groups before they manifest as protests and social movements (David and Thompson 2011).

Upstream engagement in nanotechnology, i.e., early public involvement in the processes of technology de- velopment and innovation, as well as the public provi- sion of relevant and correct information regarding nano- technology, has been envisaged as the road forward (Pidgeon et al. 2017; Rogers-Hayden et al. 2007).

Social scientists have argued that technology should be democratically governed, which calls for Breflexive^ learning processes to develop Bscientific citizenship,^ reflexive governance, and citizen capacity in science (Miah 2017; Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden 2007: 203). Communication with the public is generally agreed to be necessary for upstream engagement (Priest 2012), un- derstood as part and parcel of the social regulation of nanotechnology (Pidgeon et al. 2017; Priest 2009: 761).

The responsible development of nanotechnology to safeguard the environment, human health, and safety, and to ensure that the new technology benefits society, is understood to require citizen involvement, dialog, and participation. If we look more closely into the literature on the Bcommunication of nanotechnology to the public,^ several broad communicative goals can be identified (Delgado et al. 2011). Pidgeon and Rogers- Hayden (2007: 192) suggested three arguments for pub- lic engagement. The normative argument postulates that dialog is a good thing in itself: it is part of democracy and allows room for public values and attitudes in decision-making. The instrumental argument proposes that dialog with the public increases the legitimacy of decisions and enhances trust. The substantive argument claims that dialog creates better decisions and outcomes. The normative objectives of public inclusion and delib- eration imply broad consultation with stakeholders and the public as well as foresight and reflexivity concerning ethical and legal issues. From this normative position, dialog and public participation are essential values re- lated to innovation, and all these activities rely on infor- mation exchange and the understanding of messages.

Since the mid-1990s when the field emerged, consid- erable social science research into nanotechnology has been published. Policymakers have understood social science to be essential in grasping the dynamics of public attitudes and perceptions and in forming a basis for developing effective tools for gaining public accep- tance of nanotechnology innovation (Ebbesen 2008). Social science research on nanotechnology is multidis- ciplinary, including sociology, psychology, political sci- ence, social anthropology, science and technology stud- ies, and media and communication studies. The accu- mulated research has provided many insights into how nanotechnology is perceived by the public, how it is represented by the media, how media information af- fects public perceptions, and how policy is formed and developed. Many studies have been conducted in the US, the EU, and elsewhere (for overviews of the field,

86 Page 2 of 21 J Nanopart Res (2019) 21: 86

see Duncan 2011; Kahan 2009; Priest 2012; Ronteltap et al. 2011; Satterfield et al. 2009; Siegrist 2010).

This paper aims to present an overview of the re- search literature on the communication of nanotechnol- ogy to the public between 2002 and 2018. We will systematically identify the problems defined and solu- tions suggested in this research. We contribute by pro- viding an extensive overview of the communication of nanotechnology to the public. By adopting a holistic critical and constructivist approach, this exercise pro- vides a stepping stone to further research and policy work on what socially Bresponsible^ nanotechnology innovation and development might mean and how it might be implemented. The study also contributes to the general discussion of science communication concerning new technology.

Method, research questions, and analytical framework

This paper presents a literature review of published peer-reviewed papers (listed in the references) that ad- dress the topic of the communication of nanotechnology to the public. The papers were identified through a search in the Scopus publication database conducted in February 2018 and through ongoing searches in Google Scholar. The search terms have been Bnano^ in conjunc- tion with Bcommunication,^ Bpublic,^ Bparticipation,^ Bengagement,^ and Bdialog^ to appear in title, abstract, keywords, or main body of text. Altogether, 62 different published journal articles were identified. All 62 papers meeting the search criteria were included in the sample. The oldest study was published in 2002 and the latest in 2018. Some papers explicitly address nanotechnology communication and have Bcommunication^ among their keywords, whereas in others, the presence of the topic is less explicit. Many of the papers address com- munication issues in their discussion sections, where the implications of research findings for practice, regula- tion, or policy are considered. The papers were pub- lished in a broad range of multidisciplinary journals, though four dominate the sample (in order of frequen- cy): Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Public Understanding of Science, and Nanoethics. The literature review is not claimed to be exhaustive, but the sample presents a broad range of published research papers giving ample

insight into what scholars discuss when addressing the communication of nanotechnology to the public.

The analysis was inspired by Carol Bacchi’s (1999, 2012) approach to policy analysis. Her analytical and theoretical framework sees policy embedded in a dis- cursive construct that, implicitly or explicitly, estab- lishes problems in need of policy intervention via man- agement and mitigation. From this perspective, problematizations that underlie policy are understood as often taken for granted: they are accepted as Btruths^ beyond questioning (Bacchi 2012). The BWhat is a problem?^ approach allows for the systematic decon- struction and scrutiny of the underlying assumptions of policy problems. The analysis brings these assumptions into the open, enabling a critical approach to policy that can be applied both theoretically and in practical policy work.

According to Bacchi (1999), all problems with policy implications have a generic structure: something is iden- tified as a problem for some reason, and then is isolated, defined, and characterized with regard to its causes and consequences. Defining the problem entails choosing certain elements, characteristics, and causal explana- tions while excluding others. Some elements are foregrounded while others are backgrounded. Since the problem definition and its characterization include causal assumptions about how the problem came into existence, the problem definition paves the way for solutions. Problem definitions and solutions are concep- tually related since solutions are often logically and rationally contained in the problem framing (Lancaster and Ritter 2014). However, in policy work, this is not always the case: problems and solutions can be decoupled without any logical relationship between the two. The identification of a solution may also sometimes preclude the definition of a problem.

The research questions addressed to the literature were developed from the BWhat is a problem?^ ap- proach to policy analysis. The questions answer to the overall aim of providing a systematic and critical anal- ysis of the social science research field of nanotechnol- ogy and public communication. Each article in the sam- ple of 62 papers was read and analyzed with regard to the following questions:

1. How is the problem of the Bcommunication of nanotechnology to the public^ conceptualized, characterized, and explained?

J Nanopart Res (2019) 21: 86 Page 3 of 21 86

2. What solutions are offered to the problem of the Bcommunication of nanotechnology to the public^?

3. What is the relationship between the constructions of problems and of solutions concerning the Bcommunication of nanotechnology to the public^?

The relationship between problem and solution was not analyzed at the level of the individual paper. Far from all papers did provide answers to all three ques- tions. The analysis of the individual papers adds up to a meta-analysis of the material.

The remainder of the paper is organized into the following parts: (1) BBackground: what do we know about public understanding of nanotechnology?^ sum- marizes the main findings regarding public attitudes and perceptions necessary to understand how the problem of nanotechnology communication is discussed; (2) BThe problem of communicating nanotechnology to the public^ addresses problems and obstacles identified in the reviewed literature (this section explicitly addresses communication problems, categorizing them so that the problems can be juxtaposed to the proposed solutions in the next section); (3) BSolutions for the communication of nanotechnology to the public^ offers solutions and recommendations identified in the reviewed literature for the successful communication of nanotechnology; (4) BDiscussion^ treats these findings in relation to the research field; and (5) BConclusions^ wraps up the review and suggests ways forward.

Background: what do we know about public understanding of nanotechnology?

This section summarizes social science findings essen- tial to communicating nanotechnology to the public. In this section, the lessons from previous research are divided into the following themes: (i) public knowledge and attitudes and (ii) factors explaining public attitudes. The reviewed studies were carried out in different coun- tries using different methodologies; while most used surveys and quantitative analysis, others relied on qual- itative methods, such as interviews or focus groups. There are differences in theoretical and analytical frame- work for the studies, and their research designs differ, including case studies, experimental, cross-sectional, and even longitudinal research designs. The results are therefore not immediately comparable (Ronteltap et al. 2011). Our aim with the review was not to evaluate or

discuss why there are differences between studies. Differences in findings can be explained by a number of factors: theoretical assumptions, hypothesis, and re- search design, of data collection and analysis, concep- tual differences (Ronteltap et al. 2011), for example, in how trust is defined and operationalized. Sample char- acteristics also differ a lot. Studies are done on public understanding in different countries, with different reg- ulatory frameworks, and with considerable institutional and cultural differences. These differences also explain diverging findings. Our objective was to identify com- mon main findings regarding public understanding of nanotechnology, since such findings serve as a reference point for formulations of problems and solutions in the investigated sample of papers.

Public knowledge, attitude, interest, and engagement

Many studies have noted that the public lacks knowl- edge of nanotechnology and is unfamiliar with its basic concepts and principles (Castellini et al. 2007; Delgado et al. 2011; Larsson and Boholm 2018; Lin et al. 2013; Macoubrie 2006; Retzbach et al. 2011; Vandermoere et al. 2010). Although there are some national varia- tions, studies in a number of countries confirm this result. One of the first studies of public attitudes toward nanotechnology (Bainbridge 2002) found that the public had a high level of enthusiasm for the benefits of nano- technology and little concern over risks, and later stud- ies have confirmed this result, demonstrating that nano- technology is perceived by the public as beneficial and not associated with risk (Cobb and Macoubrie 2004; Duncan 2011). Other studies have found that a consid- erable portion of the public is indifferent toward nano- technology (Vandermoere et al. 2010). Another often- noted finding is that the public is not homogeneous (Kim et al. 2014: 967), but consists of many groups and segments with different outlooks, values, and ap- proaches to new technology (Cormick and Hunter 2014; Duncan 2011).

Nanotechnology is generally not an issue that spurs public engagement. Only a minority of citizens takes an active interest in nanotechnology and how it should be governed in society (Priest et al. 2011: 1731). When they are concerned, members of the public are worried about the societal implications of nanotechnology use, its environmental effects (Conti et al. 2011), and wheth- er its benefits will be fairly distributed (McComas and Besley 2011). There are some concerns about how

86 Page 4 of 21 J Nanopart Res (2019) 21: 86

nanotechnology products might affect society in the future, as well as whether or not nanotechnology will contribute to social and environmental sustainability (Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden 2007: 204–5). In general, the public does not have stable preformed attitudes on the subject of nanotechnology; rather, their attitudes are prone to fluctuate depending on how the media frames nanotechnology, current societal discussions of emerg- ing applications, and their understanding of the benefits, risks, and possible ethical concerns (Satterfield et al. 2009, 2012).

A growing number of studies addresses public attitudes toward various applications of nanotechnology. Risks and benefits are assessed differently depending on the area of application (Pidgeon et al. 2009; Siegrist 2010). That attitudes differ a lot depending on the area of application is clear from many studies (Cacciatore et al. 2011; Cormick 2009; Gupta et al. 2012, 2015; Larsson and Boholm 2018; Pidgeon et al. 2009; Siegrist et al. 2007). For example, people are more favorable toward nanotech- nology applications to remedy water quality, nanotechnol- ogy developments in medicine, and nanotechnology ad- dressing problems in developing countries (Macoubrie 2006: 237). Applications such as cosmetics, on the other hand, are regarded as poorly justified and are generally not approved (Larsson and Boholm 2018; Macoubrie 2006: 236). The public has been found to be skeptical or doubtful toward nanotechnology in the food sector (Bostrom and Löfstedt 2010: 1658; Duncan 2011; Siegrist et al. 2007; Vandermoere et al. 2011).

Several studies focus on public views of the labeling of nanoproducts, which is understood to be an important regulatory tool to manage consumer products containing nanomaterials (Siegrist 2010). Labeling is therefore ex- pected to have an important role in risk communication in the field of nanotechnology (Brown and Kuzma 2013). The public is favorable toward the labeling of nanotechnology used in food. They want labeling for all types of food and are also willing to pay for this, since they believe that labeling facilitates informed decisions related to risk management. Consumers also believe that they have a right to be informed (Brown and Kuzma 2013; Yue et al. 2015).

Factors explaining public attitudes toward and perception of nanotechnology

Many studies have explored the underlying causes of public attitudes toward and perceptions of nanotechnology,

demonstrating that many interacting explanatory variables are involved (Pillai and Bezbaruah 2017). In a meta- analysis of the perceived risk of nanotechnologies, Satterfield et al. (2009) concluded that public perception is influenced by a considerable number of variables, such as framing effects, media exposure, trust in regulation, popular understanding of toxicity, attitudes toward envi- ronmental risks, the perceived naturalness of nanotechnol- ogy, psychometric variables, cultural bias, and religiosity, as well as income and education. In a review of public perception studies of nanotechnology, Siegrist (2010) iden- tified values, trust, and worldview as key explanatory factors shaping views of nanotechnology.

Trust in and respect for science have been shown to be particularly important as an explanation for public attitudes toward nanotechnology (Ho et al. 2010). Many studies suggest that public opinion on nanotechnology is guided by general attitudes toward science and tech- nology, and that broad ideas about the value and use of technology in society guide the formation of attitudes toward nanotechnology (Priest 2009; Priest et al. 2011: 1721). Very few people have personal experience of and familiarity with nanotechnology, an advanced broad transdisciplinary natural science field that is difficult for non-specialists to comprehend. Therefore, it makes sense that deference to scientific authority (Ho et al. 2010), interest and trust in science, and a general belief that scientific knowledge is beneficial all influence atti- tudes toward nanotechnology (Retzbach et al. 2011).

Another dimension attracting interest in several stud- ies is the relationship between support of nanotechnol- ogy and knowledge of nanotechnology. Knowledge of nanotechnology generally increases acceptance, but on- ly slightly (Priest 2009: 763; Siegrist 2010: 840). When people who state that they know little are exposed to information about nanotechnology, they do not automat- ically become more supportive (Anderson et al. 2014: 376). Why, then, is knowledge a weak predictor of attitudes toward risk when knowledge generally makes the public more confident in new technology? It has been argued that nanotechnology actualizes many ethi- cal issues and dilemmas that do not go away or diminish with increasing knowledge of the technology (Pidgeon et al. 2011: 1697). Nanotechnology is also ambiguous due to its many areas of application, huge complexity, and broad scope of use (Renn and Roco 2006).

Values predict attitudes toward nanotechnology (Siegrist 2010). Religious belief has been shown to be negatively correlated with support for nanotechnology

J Nanopart Res (2019) 21: 86 Page 5 of 21 86

(Ho et al. 2010). In another study, religiosity was found to be negatively related to the perceived benefits of nanotechnology (Cacciatore et al. 2011: 393). Other studies, however, do not find religiosity and ideology to be related to the perceived risk of nanotechnology (Anderson et al. 2014: 383). While risk perception has been shown to be gendered for other risk issues (Finucane et al. 2000), research on public attitudes to- ward nanotechnology has mixed findings. Some studies provide evidence that gender to some extent explains attitudes toward, or acceptance of, nanotechnology (Bainbridge 2002: 569; Satterfield et al. 2009: 756), while other studies find no gender effects (Macoubrie 2006: 236).

Studies have shown that public attitudes toward nanotechnology are affected more strongly by informa- tion on risks than on benefits (Satterfield et al. 2012: 257). In some studies, perceptions of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology seem to be related, with higher perceived risks reducing the perceived benefits (Cacciatore et al. 2011: 396). Attitudes toward nano- technology are unstable and can change rapidly depend- ing on new information and how it is presented (Satterfield et al. 2012). Due to the great uncertainty regarding nanotechnology and its potential implications, public attitudes and perceptions are more unstable than they are regarding other more traditional technological risk issues (e.g., chemical risks, radiation, nuclear pow- er, and nuclear waste). One interesting finding is that women have less fixed and stable attitudes toward nanotechnology than do men, which might indicate that gender has higher explanatory power for new and less well-known technologies (Satterfield et al. 2012: 257).

Another factor influencing public opinion is media representations. It is generally agreed in the literature on public perceptions of nanotechnology that the mass media constitute a key factor influencing these attitudes (Scheufele and Lewenstein 2005). It was argued early on in the nanotechnology debate that the public often forms opinions on complex topics of which they have little knowledge and for which they lack relevant infor- mation based on the material provided by the mass media (Scheufele and Lewenstein 2005). How informa- tion is framed therefore influences risk perceptions of nanotechnology, so that risks are perceived differently depending on the social context of the information pre- sented (Schütz and Wiedemann 2008: 377). Risk per- ception is influenced by what information is provided

and opinions also change depending on information (Smith et al. 2008).

Studies have demonstrated that media use correlates positively with nanotechnology support (Ho et al. 2010) and that attention to science news correlates with sup- port for nanotechnology (Cacciatore et al. 2011: 393). The media generally emphasize benefits over risks when reporting on nanotechnology (Anderson et al. 2009; Fitzgerald and Rubin 2010; Lewenstein et al. 2005; Kjølberg 2009; Metag and Marcinkowski 2014), al- though some studies note ambiguous representations and frequent associations with risk (Anderson et al. 2005, 2009; Boholm and Boholm 2012; Friedman and Egolf 2011; Laing 2005; Weaver et al. 2009). However, exposure to information does not have a uniformly positive effect on attitudes toward nanotechnology (Ho et al. 2010: 2711). The public perceives scientific un- certainty expressed in the media differently depending on their level of trust in and deference to science author- ity (Binder et al. 2016). Consequently, representations of science in the media are not necessarily directly linked to public risk perception of new technologies (Binder et al. 2016).

The problem of communicating nanotechnology to the public

That communication with the public on nanotechnology is a delicate matter has been an underlying assumption in the field since its inception. Several challenges for the public communication of nanotechnology have been identified, problems relating to some of the issues discussed above. In this section, we dissect identified problems explicitly noted as challenges in communicat- ing nanotechnology to the public. These problems can be sorted according to basic problem definitions de- pending on how the sources of the problems are identi- fied. Analytically, three main problem themes are dis- tinguished: the public, societal organizations, and nano- technology itself.

The public is a problem

The reviewed literature presents the public as a problem for the communication of nanotechnology in ways that can be categorized into three themes: (i) deficits (i.e., lack of knowledge, interest, and engagement), (ii)

86 Page 6 of 21 J Nanopart Res (2019) 21: 86

heterogeneity, and (iii) attitudes influenced by values and emotions.

(i) Deficits (lack of knowledge, interest, and engage- ment)

Lack of knowledge and engagement among the public is understood as a problem for nanotechnol- ogy communication because it might make infor- mation difficult for the public to comprehend, in turn making it difficult to interest the public in the information provided. As discussed in the section on background, regarding nanotechnology, the public arguably has poor knowledge, is unfamiliar with the technology, harbors misconceptions, and has difficulties understanding central concepts (Castellini et al. 2007: 187; Duncan 2011; Macnaghten 2010: 24; Pidgeon and Rogers- Hayden 2007; Schütz and Wiedemann 2008; Simons et al. 2009: 1596). They also lack engage- ment and interest (Petersen et al. 2007), making it difficult to reach out or involve the public in delib- erative approaches.

(ii) The public is heterogeneous A heterogeneous public constitutes a problem for

nanotechnology communication because the level of knowledge and understanding will differ between subpopulations in society, making it difficult to develop communication strategies. As discussed in the above BBackground: what do we know about public understanding of nanotechnology^ section, the public is indeed heterogeneous and diverse (Duncan 2011: 685; Kim et al. 2014), and research has demonstrated that there are many different po- sitions for or against nanotechnology for many dif- ferent reasons (Priest 2006). The …