Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:31:18.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Communication for Nanobiotechnology: To Whom, About What, and Why?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Susanna Hornig Priest
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Regulatory oversight and public communication are intimately intertwined. Oversight failures, both actual and perceived, quickly galvanize attention from both the media and the public, as has occasionally happened in all of the historical cases with which this symposium is concerned — gene therapy, workplace chemicals, drugs and devices, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially those used as (or in) foods. Some developments, such as GMOs, seem to have more cultural significance or “cultural resonance” than others and are especially likely to garner public attention. Developments in nanotechnology, on the other hand, do not seem to have captured as much popular attention. However, the accelerating convergence between nanotechnology as material science and biotechnology, health, and medicine could easily change this situation.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , Winter 2009 , pp. 759 - 769
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, L., “Engaging the Public in Technology Policy: A New Role for Science Museums,” Science Communication 29, no. 3 (2008): 386–398; Priest, S. H., “Science and Technology Policy and Ethics: What Role Should Science Museums Play?” Museums and Social Issues (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Kasperson, R. and Kasperson, J., “The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545, no. 1 (1996): 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
It is not the purpose of this paper to argue that scientific analyses are necessarily superior to (e.g., more accurate than) culture-based predilections or aversions; however, the two often support contradictory conclusions.Google Scholar
“Nanobio refers to nano-products and nano-processes that use biological materials, that are intended to affect biological processes, or that mimic biological systems.” Paradise, J. et al., “Comparative Report – Developing U.S. Oversight Strategies for Nanobiotechnology: Learning from Past Oversight Experiences,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009): 688–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See also H. Gans's well-known 1979 analysis of how things become news, in Hans, G., Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time (New York: Pantheon Books, 1979).Google Scholar
Hovland, C., Lumsdaine, A. A. and Sheffield, F. D., Experiments on Mass Communication (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1949).Google Scholar
Sturgis, P. and Allum, N., “Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science 13, no. 1 (2004): 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S., “Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source versus Message Cues in Persuasion,” Journal of Perspectives in Social Psychology 39, no. 5 (1980): 752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Of course, expert knowledge cannot ever be completely “unbiased” and some element of coercion may be unavoidable.Google Scholar
Pearson, G. and Young, A. Thomas, eds., Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More about Technology (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Based on the consumer products inventory of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, available at <http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/> (last visited June 3, 2009). (last visited June 3, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Based+on+the+consumer+products+inventory+of+the+Woodrow+Wilson+Center's+Project+on+Emerging+Nanotechnologies,+available+at++(last+visited+June+3,+2009).>Google Scholar
Downs, A., “Up and Down with Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’” The Public Interest 28 (1972): 38–50.Google Scholar
Reinberg, S., “Americans Confused about FDA and Drug Safety,” U.S. News & World Report, September 20, 2007, available at <http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/070920/americans-confused-about-fda-and-drug-safety.htm> (last visited June 3, 2009).+(last+visited+June+3,+2009).>Google Scholar
Paradise, J. et al., “Evaluating Oversight of Human Drugs and Medical Devices: A Case Study of the FDA and Implications for Nanobiotechnology,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009): 598–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Quist, D. and Chapela, I. H., “Transgenic DNA Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico,” Nature 414, no. 6863 (2001): 541–543. This claim was, however, broadly disputed.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucchini, L. and Goldman, L. R., “Starlink Corn: A Risk Analysis,” Environmental Health Perspectives 110, no. 1 (2002): 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, S. H., A Grain of Truth: The Media, the Public, and Biotechnology (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001).Google Scholar