According to an opinion study titled ‘Envisioning Emerging Nanotechnologies: A Three-Year Panel Study of South Carolina Citizens,’ very few people in the panel have expressed concern about the risk of nanotechnology and over 67% of the panel have said that the new technology will improve the quality of their lives, especially in the medical field.
The National Science Foundation-funded study was conducted by George Mason University’s Susanna Priest in partnership with the University of South Carolina’s Victoria Kramer and the University of Nevada Las Vegas’ Lindsey Jo Hand, Ted Greenhalgh and Thomas Lane. For the panel, the researchers selected 76 people of different communities, including environmental stakeholders, members of different church groups, community opinion leaders and other citizens so that to obtain widespread opinions.
The study was based on the benefits and risks of the technology, familiarity with the terms of the technology, information exposure, demographics, current applications and trust in the scientific community and different data sources. In addition, the panel people participated in an open-ended questionnaire on nanotechnology. Adverse side effects and unpredicted consequences were the major risks of nanotechnology, according to 37% of the panel, while 13% of the people said that weaponization was its major risk and 9% said that environmental and medical contamination were its major risks. Less than 5% of the panel felt that product failure, costs and privacy were the risks of the technology.
Most of the panel people knew the term nanotechnology. However, very few expressed familiarity with products related with nanotechnology. A majority of the people have widely accepted the utilization of nanotechnology, according to the study. Around 50% of the participants expressed belief that the medical industries will be the major beneficiary of nanotechnology. About one-half of the panel felt that government regulation is required to tackle safety issues. Further studies are required to compare the opinion difference between common citizen groups and opinion leaders.