1. NANOTOXICOLOGY & PUBLIC PERCEPTION David M. Berube Professor of Science Communication, STS, and CRDM (Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media), North Carolina State University Director: NCSU Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCOST) Project/Center/Institute. CEO, Center for Converging Technologies, LLC – social media consultancy (trade assns and food industry). PI: NSF NIRT #0809470 – Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement, 2007-2011 (3 pending). http://pcost.org 2 ND iCEINT Conference 2010© Berube May 11-12, 2010 – UCLA, Los Angeles, CA

2. RECENT/FORTHCOMING WORKS Written extensively in the rhetoric of emerging technologies, esp. nanotechnology (including NanoHype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. NY: Prometheus Books. 2006). Berube et al. Authored the White Paper on Risk Communication in the 21 st Century for NNCO, NNI. Berube et al. completed two surveys: expert Delphi on nanoparticle safety and public Dillman survey on nanoparticle risk.

3. Topless Humans Organized for Natural Genetics

4. COPE-ing: Consume.* Outreach. Participate. Engage. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

5. ENGAGEMENT ISSUES CONSUME PARTICIPATE ENGAGE OUTREACH

6. 1.Cultural worldview theories (see Kahan et al). Ideological associations between perceptions on safety and who and how to regulate (new data). 2.Religiosity theories, see Scheufele et al. Beliefs linked to perceptions (new data). Relinked it to socio-economic (new data). 3.Flattened interest, see Kahan, Scheufele, Satterfield, and Berube. 4.Familiarity hypothesis – linking perception to familiarity; deficit theory revisited. 5.Socio-economic hypothesis – work out of PCOST. REVIEW

7. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE (DYNAMICS) ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES USA (3 yr span) 2004: Cobb/ Macoubrie 2005a: Einsiedel 2005b: Macoubrie 2006: Hart 2007: Kahan IRGC, 2009

8. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES CANADA AND EUROPE (GERMANY) 2004: UK-BMRB 2004: DE-Komm- passion 2005: CAN-Eisendel 2007: BfR IRGC, 2009

9. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE = INTEREST 1.From 2004 to 2007 public who heard little or nothing decreased from 84 to 81 percent, people who heard some or a lot increased from 16 to 19 percent = ? 2.Over 3 years, no significant impact from media exposure. 3% within error percentage.

10. Public interest in science/tech policy. – Traditionally low (7-10%). Likely to be case/region specific. – Competing interests (unemployment, economy, wars….) Methodologies. – Critical case studies- hold strategic importance to issues. – Experimental design (Kahan). MOVE TO CRITICAL CASE STUDIES

11. Unaided Evaluation - General PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES (HART 06-08)

12. Dillman National Public Survey (w U South Carolina, N=307) –Impressions of nano and synthetic bio (non- framed), –General risk levels (Slovic), –Concerns of nanoparticle risks, –Perceptions of expert ratings of risk, –Sources and use of various media for risk info Trust Social media sources, –Demographics *** Religion Ideology. BERUBE et al. NEW DATA (2009) Expert Delphi Study (NCSU) Expert Elicitation  Nanoparticle toxicity,  Potentially problematic uses,  Potentially problematic applications,  Estimations of public perceptions of risk.

13. UNPRIMED PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA “What comes to mind when you hear the word “nanotechnology”? “Very very small subject matter- beyond microscopic.” “Cutting edge research and technology that has made products smaller, faster, lighter, and stronger.” “I actually don’t have the slightest idea, but I’m going to take a guess and say that it would be the smallest pieces of technological machines that can be made.”

14. KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA EXPERT – HYPOTHETICAL EXPERT VIEW OF PUBLIC EXPERTS: which current and predictably future products involving the applications of nanoparticles are potentially or actually problematic to EHS? REGULATION HYPOTHESIS RankExperts: Top 5 applications 1Cosmetics 2Fuel additives 3Anti-microbial clothing 4Toys and baby products 5Pesticides PUBLIC: If experts were asked which potential or actual uses of nanoparticles most concerned the public, how do you think they would rate the public’s concerns? RankPublic: Top 5 Applications 1Medicine 2Pesticides 3Food Additives 4Anti-microbial treatments 5Food Packaging

15. EXPERTS: What applications or products do you assume the public believes is potentially or actually problematic (using ordinal rankings)? KNOWLEDGE/INTEREST DATA EXPERT HYPOTHETICAL PUBLIC - ACTUAL PUBLIC RankTop 5 Applications 1Cosmetics 2Food additives 3Sunscreens 4 All CNTs 5Nanobots RankTop 5 Applications 1Food additives 2Pesticides 3Drugs 4Food packaging 5Water treatment PUBLIC: how concerned are you about risk to health and safety of the following potential or actual uses of nanoparticles as a component of each of the following (on a 7-item scale). FOOD

16. TV and Internet News Consumption Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2008

17. How often do you use the following media sources FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as once a day or more)? RankMedia sources 1Television (59%) 2Internet (44%) 3Radio 4Newspapers RankTop Web 2.0 internet sources 1News accumulators (27%) 2Personal accumulators (21%) 3Health Blogs 4Social networking sites 5Wikis Which internet sources do you use FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as one a week or more)? HEALTH AND SAFETY SOURCES INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA (Web 2.0)

18. 52.8% - SLIGHT to NO risk. 74.6% - MODERATE to NO risk. Only 13.0% - HIGH health risk (only higher than X- Rays, cell phones, transfusions, and air travel), and less risky than storms and floods. Top 3 – street drugs, cigarette smoking, and AIDS. Weighted Ranking - 18/24 risks. Behind: stress, motor vehicle accidents, cloning, sun tanning, pesticide residues on foods, coal and oil burning plants, radon… HEALTH AND SAFETY COMPARATIVE RANKINGS OF RISKS Slovic 1994/Berube 2009

19. NANOPARTICLE EHS RISKS BY DEMOGRAPHICS ANOVA – Income and education are the primary independent variables that demonstrate significant group differences. – Income: F(5, 284)=5.074, p<.001 – Education: F(6, 299)=4.998, p<.001

20. EDUCATION AND INCOME DEMOGRAPHICS AGAINSTS NANOPARTICLE EHS RISKS

21. HEALTH AND SAFETY PUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES AND TRUST PUBLIC: Which sources are you most likely to turn to FOR INFO about risks to health and safety (reported as probably would or more)? RankTop 5 EHS sources for info about risks 1 Doctors and health professionals (73%) 2 University researchers (41%) 3Family members 4Friends and acquaintances 5 Industrial researchers 1.“Religious leaders” 2 nd to last ahead of “Elected representatives”. 2.“Industrial scientists” were deemed more trustworthy than “NGOs”.

22. NANOPARTICLE EHS RISKS BY RELIGIOSITY DEMOGRAPHICS ANOVA – Religiosity measures demonstrate insignificant group differences: – Attend religious services: F (7, 298)=.77, p=.663 – Consider yourself religious: F (3, 299)=2.12, p=.098 – Religion guides daily decision making: F (6, 295)=.862, p=.523 – Differences in religiosity levels are only significant for self reports of religiosity affecting views of science and technology issues: F (3, 298)=3.053, p<.05

23. Attend religious services: F (7, 298)=.77, p=.663 ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICE

24. F (3, 299)=2.12, p=.098 CONSIDER YOURSELF RELIGIOUS

25. F (6, 295)=.862, p=.523 RELIGION AND DECISION MAKING

26. F (3, 298)=3.053, p<.05 RELIGIOSITY

27. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Ecotoxicology and public perception – nearly a half entire generation of environmental neglect. Human toxicology and ecotoxicology communication – similarities and contrasts. Models of coping – new media challenges –SARF vs. new media. –town meeting vs. virtual meetings.

28. NANOTOXICOLOGY & PUBLIC PERCEPTION This work was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation, NSF 0809470, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement. NCSU, U Wisconsin, U Minnesota, U South Carolina, & Rice U. (6-8 grad and doctoral students). THANKS dmberube@ncsu.edu 2 ND ICEINT Conference 2010© Berube May 11-12, 2010 – UCLA, Los Angeles, CA