Informing the Public Debate on Nanotech

“Frankenfood.” The word that best captures the public outcry over genetically modified agriculture also best explains why the National Science Foundation is backing the nanotechnology research of political scientists Patrick Hamlett and Michael Cobb, and social scientist Brent Faber. The trio of College of Humanities and Social Sciences (CHASS) researchers is studying public perceptions, hopes, and fears related to nanotechnology, trying to prevent a similar backlash as nanoscience becomes more mainstream.

Putting an informed public voice into nanotechnology development could make the process more efficient.

Although scientists have considered molecular-level applications since the late 1950s, nanotechnology didn’t emerge in the public eye until a 1986 article in Omni magazine, says Faber, a professor of English and linguistics who recently came to NC State from Clarkson University. Since then, nanotechnology has been represented in the media as a breakthrough technology in fields ranging from medical devices to anti-terror efforts to civil engineering. Early reports linked the still uncertain science with the promise of molecular robots and other fantastic inventions, Faber says, noting the media was slow to express skepticism about practical applications or concerns about health, environmental, or economic impacts. “Articles influence the way people understand and think about nanotechnology,” he says. “A lot of it has been hype and glory without any sustained thought as to how it might affect us.”

To get a better handle on public understanding of nanotechnology, Hamlett and Cobb are conducting specialized forums based on a format developed in Denmark. Ordinary people will be provided with background information about nanotechnology and allowed to ask questions of experts before the group works together to devise a set of recommendations for developing the science. “The perception is that the public is very badly informed—sometimes misinformed—about science and technology,” says Hamlett, an associate professor in CHASS’ Science, Technology and Society program and the Department of Political Science. “We’re trying to provide informed, deliberative public input.”

Three years ago, Cobb, an assistant professor of political science, conducted the first nationwide poll on public perceptions of nanotechnology. Most people surveyed looked favorably on it, focusing on new science as helpful rather than harmful. But he says policymakers need to know what concerns people have about nanotechnology as they learn more about it so those concerns don’t escalate into another frankenfood debate. “Lawmakers, lobbyists, and scientists all have their opinions. What do other people think?” Cobb says. The forums will help put an informed public voice into technology development, which Hamlett says could make the process more efficient. “By making the development of nanotechnology more democratic,” he says, “we might be able to avoid the public acceptance problems that have plagued other technologies.”