Environmental Health
lateasha
homework.pdf
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames
MARIA C. POWELL
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Abstract This exploratory case study compares risk frames of scientists who are developing new nano- technologies (upstream scientists) with those of scientists who might later study the health effects of these technologies (downstream scientists). It is based on a series of in-depth interviews with scientists at a major research university in the United States. Interviews reveal some substantial differences in risk frames among upstream and downstream scientists – many of which center on whether or not nanotechnologies and nanomaterials are perceived as ‘new’. Most upstream scientists said they do not think nanotechnologies pose new or substantial risks, while most downstream scientists said they are worried that they may pose new, unforeseen, and possibly substantial risks. Upstream scientists are less likely than downstream scientists to think that concerns about potential nanotechnology risks are based on valid science and tend to consider a narrower range of uncertainties. Interviews suggest that these risk and uncertainty frames are influenced by contrasting disciplinary backgrounds, information exposures, and interdisciplinary interactions. Findings suggest that more comprehensive nanotechnology risk policies might be developed if a wider variety of different kinds of scientists – including downstream scientists – are involved in upstream nanotechnology development and policymaking.
Keywords: Nanotechnology, uncertainty, risk frames, framing
Introduction
The rapid development of new technologies in the last several decades has brought with it a
host of uncertainties and unknowns about environmental and health risks (Lukasiewicz
1994, Beck 1995, Riem and Wynne 2002). Scientists’ risk assessments often play central
roles in controversies about the nature of these risks, and uncertainty – an inherent part of
risk assessment – has become an increasingly popular research topic (Smithson 1989,
Stocking 1998, Friedman et al. 1999, Jaeger et al. 2001). Scholars often compare scientists’
quantitative risk assessments, typically in contexts in which new technologies or their by-
products have found their way into the environment or when public health or environmental
problems are suspected or have already occurred (McMahon et al. 2002, Driedger and Eyles
2003, Krayer von Kraus et al. 2004, Schutz and Wiedemann 2005). There is relatively little
research on scientists’ risk perceptions during the technology development phase (Cook
et al. 2004, Fisher et al. 2005). The lack of scholarly attention to scientists’ risk frames
during the technology development phase is odd, given that scientists can shape the kinds of
Correspondence: Maria C. Powell, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, 70 Science Hall 550 N. Park St., University of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA. Tel: 608-890-0394, 608-240-1485. Fax: 608-240-1485. E-mail: [email protected]
Health, Risk & Society,
June 2007; 9(2): 173 – 190
ISSN 1369-8575 print/ISSN 1469-8331 online � 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13698570701306872
technologies that are developed, the direction of future scientific research, government
policies and regulations, and the nature of media coverage about new technologies and risks
(Aronowitz 1988, Nelkin 1995, Friedman et al. 1999).
In this exploratory case study, I compare the risk and uncertainty frames of ‘upstream’
scientists, who are involved with the development of emerging nanotechnologies, and
‘downstream’ scientists, who study health and environmental effects of technologies years
after they are developed. The central premise of the study is that scientists’ spatial and
temporal locations – or ‘standpoints’ – in relation to the development of nanotechnologies
can shape the ways they frame uncertainties and potential risks related to these technologies
(Harding 1998, Gieryn 1999, Althaus 2005). Scientists at different standpoints have
contrasting disciplinary backgrounds and do not address the same kinds of problems in their
research (Althaus 2005). Moreover, the kinds of interdisciplinary interactions they engage
in, and their information environments, differ substantially. All of these factors, I propose,
can shape their knowledge about scientific and technological issues, which can shape their
uncertainty and risk frames related to these issues.
Frames and narratives, uncertainty and risk
The term ‘frame’ refers to the ways that people, in this case scientists, organize their
thoughts, feelings, and other perceptions into meaningful narratives. Frames are ‘persistent
patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and
exclusion, by which symbol handlers routinely organize discourse, whether verbal or visual’
(Gitlin 1980: 7). Individuals’ frames are shaped by the larger groups they are associated
with, but are also situated in particular times and places. Frames among various groups are
stories or narratives that help individuals in these groups make sense of their experiences and
feel secure. For example, Jasanoff (2005) describes the framing process in the regulation of
science and technology as ‘. . . a kind of story-telling by communities situated in parti-
cular times and places,’ which allows people to ‘order and make sense of complex
experiences . . . and take meaningful action and so reduce their feelings of helplessness and
alienation’ (p. 23).
Frames serve to mark boundaries around issues, thereby identifying ‘what will be
discussed, how it will be discussed, and above all, how it will not be discussed’ (Altheide
1996, Dreidger et al. 2003: 1280). In this study, risk narratives are defined as the discursive
work through which scientists define where the boundaries of risk frames are, what is
included in them, and what is not. Scientists often draw these boundaries based on what
they think constitutes science and what does not (Gieryn 1999). Moreover, because
assessing risks involves drawing boundaries between and around what is perceived as known
and what is perceived as unknown or uncertain, risk narratives inherently include scientific
and other kinds of uncertainty (although this is not always explicit). Viewing risk frames as
being defined through discursive or narrative work (as opposed to quantitative risk
assessments, for instance) is particularly appropriate when considering highly uncertain
technological risks, ‘where ignorance is the main feature and no amount of resources can
provide ‘‘scientific’’ answers’ (Althaus 2005: 572). In other words, when dealing with highly
complex new technologies, data gaps often make quantitative risk estimates based on
empirical evidence impossible (Funtowics and Ravetz 1990, Althaus 2005).
Describing scientists’ risk frames as being defined by narratives, however, does not imply
that scientific knowledge is not involved in constructing these frames. As Althaus (2005)
argues, ‘risk is an ordered application of knowledge to the unknown’ (p. 567). In other
words, knowns and unknowns are like flip sides of the same coin, and are both part of
174 M. C. Powell
assessing risks and constructing risk frames. Scientists apply their scientific knowledge –
along with other kinds of knowledge, emotions, and perceptions – to their risk narratives,
and therefore risk frames are shaped by these factors. Like laypersons’ perceptions,
scientists’ knowledge and perceptions are influenced by demographics, contexts, experi-
ences, education, and culture. A key premise of this paper is that scientists’ knowledge
and perceptions about risks will also be shaped by their temporal and spatial stand-
points in relation to the risks under consideration. In addition, I propose that several
broad factors, discussed later, can shape scientists’ risk narratives at these different
standpoints.
What shapes scientists’ uncertainty and risk frames?
Like laypersons’ risk frames, scientists’ risk frames are contingent on their locations relative
to the risks under consideration. Consequently, we need to consider where different kinds of
scientists are located temporally and spatially in relation to the risk issue – in other words,
we need to understand their ‘standpoints’. In this study, I use the terms ‘upstream’ and
‘downstream’ to refer to scientists’ standpoints in relation to the development of engineered
nanomaterials. Risk frames of upstream and downstream scientists will vary considerably
because scientists in these locations are likely to have different kinds of disciplinary
backgrounds, work experiences, interdisciplinary interactions, and information exposures.
These factors, I propose, will shape what they know and do not know about potential
nanotechnology risks, which in turn will shape their risk frames.
Upstream scientists design and develop new (and usually synthetic) materials. They are
typically engineers, chemists, physicists, and materials scientists; with the rapid growth in
biotechnologies and nanotechnologies in recent years, biologists are also increasingly
involved with creating new materials. Clearly, scientists who create these materials are
situated relatively early, temporally, in these developments. They are also situated in key
locations spatially. They are at the planning, design, and creation phase; they make new
materials or do the research necessary to make these materials in their laboratories. They
need to understand the properties and characteristics that make these materials work.
Downstream scientists, by contrast, usually have little to do with creating new materials and
technologies. They are toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other public health scientists who
study the health and environmental effects of materials that have found their way into the
environment or human bodies, or environmental chemists and engineers who monitor
where these materials are and how they are transformed in the environment. In sum,
downstream scientists study or monitor the environmental materials that were created in
laboratories by upstream scientists and engineers in the past.
Upstream and downstream scientists, in other words, tend to have different disciplinary
backgrounds and do different kinds of scientific work (although there is often some overlap).
I propose that different disciplinary perspectives can shape scientists’ uncertainty and risk
frames in key ways. As Althaus (2005) argues, different disciplines have ‘a particular
knowledge approach with which they confront the unknown so as to order its randomness
and convert it into a risk proposition . . . the concept of risk can act as a mirror, reflecting
the preoccupations, strengths, and weaknesses of each discipline as they grapple with
uncertainty’ (p. 567). Scientists in different disciplines do research on processes that occur
at very different scales (narrow, broad, short-term, long-term), that will, in part, define
where they draw boundaries around what they know and do not know, what is uncertain and
certain, and what they need to know. These boundaries, which are likely to be drawn
differently in various disciplines, will affect risk frames in critical ways.
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? 175
Further, interactions with colleagues and exposures to media and other information
sources are likely to shape scientists’ knowledge and risk frames. The ranges of disciplinary
and interdisciplinary interactions scientists have, and the types of information they are
exposed to, will be influenced by their backgrounds and the types of institutions and organi-
zations they work for. Upstream scientists, for example, are more likely to work for university
engineering or materials science departments or technology development corporations.
Downstream scientists are more likely to work in toxicology, epidemiology, public health,
and/or environmental departments in universities or in public or environmental health
government agencies. The types of conferences scientists in different departments and
institutions attend, and the kinds of journals they are encouraged to read and publish in, are
likely to vary. All of these factors, moreover, are shaped by the disciplinary and institutional
cultures in these different settings (Gieryn 1999, Godin and Gingras 2000).
Several studies have shown, in fact, that disciplinary backgrounds, institutional
affiliations, and worldviews can affect scientists’ risk perceptions significantly (Kraus et al.
1992, Slovic et al. 1995, McMahan et al. 2002, Driedger and Eyles 2003). Perhaps not
surprisingly, McMahon et al. (2002) found that scientists who work for utility companies are
more likely to agree that electromagnetic fields do not pose health risks than are scientists in
government or academia. Similarly, Slovic et al. (1995) found that toxicologists who work
for industries are less inclined to agree that certain chemicals cause cancer than are
toxicologists in academic or government. Interestingly, Fisher et al. (2005) found that
scientists more broadly trained in farm systems research and land/environmental manage-
ment tended to be less positive about genetic modification than did those trained in plant
breeding, genomics, and reproductive technologies – even though all of these scientists
worked for the same biotechnology company. They concluded that these differences are
related to the more ‘holistic, integrative’ scientific approaches among the farm systems and
environmental management scientists, as opposed to the more reductionist scientific
approaches among the plant breeding and reproduction scientists.
Background on potential nanotechnology risks
Nanotechnologies are among the fastest growing areas of scientific research currently, and
have important applications in a wide variety of fields. Analysts are predicting that nano-
technology will be at least a trillion-dollar industry by 2012 (Roco 2004). Nanotechnologies
are defined as activities that include ‘the manipulation, precision placement, measurement,
modeling, or manufacture of sub-100 nanometer scale matter . . .’ (Donaldson et al. 2004).
Engineered nanomaterials can be made from nearly any kind of substance. At the nanoscale,
materials have many properties that make them very useful for a variety of applications –
such as high conductivity, strength, durability, and reactivity.
Unfortunately, many of the properties that make nanosized materials so useful can also
make them more toxic to cells and organisms. Because they are so small, the physical and
chemical characteristics of nanomaterials may differ substantially from bulk materials
(Preining 1998, Jefferson 2000, Aitken 2004). Nanometer-sized materials have high surface-
to-volume ratios, and so a large proportion of their atoms are on the surface, allowing them
to more readily react with adjacent atoms and substances (Jefferson 2000). A considerable
body of research associates existing small particulate matter in our environment, such as fine
and ultrafine particles produced incidentally via fossil fuel combustion, with adverse public
health effects (Pope et al. 2002, Krewski et al. 2005). Several recent animal and cell culture
studies on engineered nanomaterials show that some of these materials can have biological
effects similar to ultrafine particulates and/or asbestos (Lam et al. 2004, Muller et al. 2005,
Oberdorster et al. 2005).
176 M. C. Powell
Currently, it is estimated that almost five hundred products already on the market include
nanomaterials. Production levels of certain nanomaterials are estimated to be in the millions
of metric tons per year, and these levels are expected to rise dramatically during the next
decade (Lux Research 2004, Environmental Law Institute 2005, BCC Research, 2005).
Given this, several toxicology and public health scientists have raised concerns about
occupational exposures to engineered nanomaterials in workplaces, exposures to consumer
products with these materials, and their long-term environmental fates (Ding et al. 2005,
Hardman 2005, Kipen and Laskin 2005, Muller et al. 2005). In recent years, scientists,
governments, insurance agencies, and nongovernmental organizations worldwide have
released numerous risk assessment reports about the potential health and environmental
risks related to the widespread production and use of nanomaterials (Borm and Kreyling
2004, Hett et al. 2004, Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering 2004, Oberdorster
et al. 2005).
Meanwhile, there are numerous uncertainties and data gaps about many aspects of these
risks – including characterization of the materials, modes of toxicological action, exposure
levels, health and safety measures, and emissions into the environment (Holsapple et al.
2005, Powell and Kanarek 2006). Currently, there are no government health and safety
regulations that specifically address nanotechnologies or nanomaterials, although govern-
ments and scientists worldwide are in the process of developing them (Royal Society &
Royal Academy of Engineering 2004, NIOSH 2005).
Research questions and methods
The key research questions guiding this study are as follows: (1) How do risk frames
of upstream scientists involved with nanotechnology research compare to those of down-
stream scientists who might study nanotechnology health effects in the future? (2) What
role does uncertainty play in these frames? (3) Do disciplinary backgrounds, interdisci-
plinary interactions, and information environments shape nanotechnology risk frames, and
how so?
To begin to answer these questions, I interviewed 20 scientists at a major research
university in the United States – 12 ‘upstream’ and 8 ‘downstream’ scientists. All of the
upstream scientists work in nanotechnology-related research and development, and all but
one (a postdoctoral researcher) are professors. Two of the upstream scientists are women
and ten are men. They include seven chemists or chemical engineers with organic,
inorganic, and physical chemistry backgrounds, three physicists with physics-only back-
grounds, and two scientists with combined biology and chemistry backgrounds. The
majority of these scientists work on materials science applications (primarily electronics),
and the rest do research for pharmaceutical or biomedical applications or biosensors. All of
the downstream scientists except one (a postdoctoral researcher) are professors, and all are
men. They include four environmental engineers, both with chemistry and biology
backgrounds, three toxicologists, all with combination biology, biochemistry, and toxicology
backgrounds, and one environmental epidemiologist with a background in biology,
environmental science, and public health. All of these scientists work on either monitoring
synthetic substances in the environment or assessing the toxicological and public health
effects related to synthetic substances in the environment.
Interview questions were designed to explore key factors that might affect scientists’ risk
frames, including (1) disciplinary backgrounds and current research, (2) interdisciplinary
interactions and scientific information exposures, (3) interactions with nanotechnology
processes and materials, (4) perceived knowledge about nanotechnology risks and
information sources for this knowledge, (5) characterization of risks and uncertainties,
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? 177
and (6) level of concern about the risks – to self, others, and the environment. Specific
interview questions are listed in Appendix 1.
I interviewed all scientists in-person and interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim.
Interviews were all completed between July and November 2005. I used a semistructured
interview format and a conversational interviewing style in which interviewees were probed
with follow-up questions (e.g. Why or why not? Can you explain further?). Interviews ranged
from 30 – 90 minutes. Using a semistructured and conversational format allowed me to
probe beyond answers provided to specific questions and get more nuanced and complete
answers than I would get using a fixed-choice questionnaire.
Analyses of the transcripts were done on several levels. Levels of key perceptions were
assessed and compared (e.g. How concerned is one scientist about nanotechnology risks?
How concerned is another scientist?), as were explanations for these perceptions (e.g. Why is
a scientist concerned or not concerned?). More important, I looked for common patterns in
risk perceptions among upstream and downstream scientists, and how associated
perceptions formed coherent narratives that bounded and shaped risk frames. At the same
time, I was attentive to exceptions to common risk framing patterns among and between
upstream and downstream scientists.
Comparing risk and uncertainty frames
Upstream frames
The central narrative that shapes upstream scientists’ frames revolves around whether or not
nanotechnology is something new. Many upstream scientists expressed considerable
frustration that, as they perceive it, the public and media view nanotechnology as something
new and therefore risky. Given that nanotechnology has been going on for many years, they
do not understand why it is being singled out now. None said they are particularly worried
about the risks related to nanotechnologies personally or for the public, and several asserted
that ‘most scientists they know’ or ‘we’ (referring to scientist colleagues) are not very
concerned about it. A few, however, said they recognize that there are some risk concerns
that should be addressed by regulatory agencies, and that they trust that these agencies will
do so.
Upstream scientists’ self-perceived knowledge levels about nanotechnology’s potential
risks varied from ‘almost nothing’ to ‘a better understanding than a well-educated layman’.
The majority said they do not know that much about the risks and few expressed interest in
knowing more. Several said they were vaguely aware of current discussions about nano-
technology risks, but do not understand what the risk concerns are based on. Moreover,
many expressed uncertainties about why the nanometer size of these materials might make
them any more risky than larger materials:
. . . why would nano get targeted more than micro, for particles that would be in the
environment and being able to be brought into cells and cause cancer or something. Well,
there isn’t any difference as far as I know, or is there? I don’t know . . . Right now they use
micron-sized particles for drug delivery, do they not? So why is it now you would focus on
those particles being able to get into cells, associate that with nano instead of just with
particles? I would like that explained to me. (chemical engineer)
When asked about exposures they might face in their own research, most said they believe
that the nanomaterials they work with do not pose unique health hazards when compared
178 M. C. Powell
with other materials they routinely handle in the laboratory and/or that the amounts they
work with are too small to be risky. Most said that although they do not take any particular
safety precautions with nanomaterials, they believe that their standard laboratory safety
precautions are adequate. When asked about potential public risks, most said that they are
likely to be low because nanomaterials are currently being produced in very minute
quantities, few products are on the market yet, and they are not likely to be on the market in
the near future.
Three of the upstream scientists were adamant that concerns about nanotechnology risks
are without scientific merit and are being generated by fearful activists and/or ill-informed
Luddites who have something to gain by promoting the idea that nanotechnology is new and
risky. Asked whether or not she had seen articles in journals about nanotechnology risks, one
scientist answered (interviewer’s questions are in parentheses):
No, I mean, again, people talk about it, but at the political level. (Are you hearing about it
in your research community?) No, we all think it’s garbage. I mean, to people who are
trying to do serious science, you know, at the nanoscale . . . this idea that somehow it’s a
particular health hazard to me just seems, you know, without any scientific evidence.
(physicist)
Another scientist who said risk concerns are without merit, asked who he thought was
raising concerns about nanotechnology risks, said ‘. . . I guess I’d label them as activists’
and when asked what he thought motivated them, said ‘Ah, misunderstanding, fear.
Misunderstanding of the technology, fear of technology in general’ (biochemist).
Upstream scientists mentioned few uncertainties specific to nanomaterial risks per se.
Several scientists implied that nanotechnology risk uncertainties are social, rather than
scientific, issues:
So let me ask you, what is it about nano that people think is particularly dangerous,
because I don’t even have a sense. I know nothing, I think it’s all just sort of . . . somebody
decided this, and I think in large measure it’s a societal issue because somebody made it
one as opposed to any sort of good, fundamental reason. (physicist)
A few discussed uncertainties about inhalation in nanotechnology industries, which they felt
were legitimate, but none mentioned uncertainties about exposures in research settings.
Uncertainties about broader issues such as potential environmental fates or ecological effects
were not discussed.
Many uncertainties discussed by upstream scientists were related to controlling
nanomaterial development processes. The terms ‘developing’, ‘manipulating’, ‘modifying’,
‘predicting’, and ‘assembling’ were common in comments about scientific uncertainties. For
example, several engineers and chemists who create biological substances (e.g. synthetic
DNA, proteins, or cells) using nanotechnologies, or combine biological substances with
electronic materials (bio-nano electronics), described biological substances as ‘building
blocks’ for electronic materials:
For the most part we’re thinking of cells as intact objects. We’re not focusing, say, on
internal processes . . . one of the things that we’re really starting to address right now
is . . . what are the things that are expressed on the outside of the cell, and how can we use
that to control its interactions with the rest of the environment? And that basically factors
both into the nano area, can you use the cell as an intermediate building block because it’s
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? 179
got all these complex chemical groups? I may not care at all about the biology of a cell, I
may think of it as something that I can easily make that’s got a lot of chemical complexity
to it. (chemist)
Similarly, another scientist described how his laboratory struggles with uncertainties about
how to ‘chemically modify those materials, how do we manipulate them . . . and then how do
we manipulate biological cells . . .’? (chemical engineer) Because these scientists view
biological substances (in this case, cells) as building blocks for electronics and other
materials, their uncertainties focus on controlling and manipulating cellular processes or
cellular interactions with nanomaterials, rather than uncertainties about cellular processes
per se or how nanomaterials might interfere in these processes in harmful ways in organisms.
Upstream scientists mentioned information sources and interdisciplinary interactions
throughout interviews, and in some cases directly connected them to their risk perspectives.
Nearly all of the upstream interviewees said that they got their information about
nanotechnology risk issues primarily from mass media (e.g. New York Times, CNN) or
science news journals (e.g. Chemical and Engineering News was mentioned by several
scientists). Only one of the upstream scientists had read a few peer-reviewed articles on
nanomaterial risks. The three scientists who felt that they knew the most about current
discussions and uncertainties related to nanomaterial risks said they gained this knowledge
from group meetings with social scientists at their university who do research on the social,
ethical, and environmental aspects of emerging nanotechnologies.
Upstream scientists said that during the course of their day-to-day scientific work, they
interact with a fairly wide range of scientists, including chemists, engineers, physicists,
materials scientists, and in some cases, biologists and medical researchers. The biologists, of
course, interact with biologists more than other scientists do. With the exception of one of
the biologists, most of these scientists attend similar chemistry, physics and materials science
conferences – e.g. American Chemical Society, American Physical Society conferences.
Journals most commonly mentioned include Journal of Chemical Physics, Applied Physics
Letters, Physical Review Letters, Langmuir, Macromolecules, Science, and Nature. Interestingly,
only one scientist mentioned regularly reading a nanotechnology-specific journal (Nano
Letters). One scientist (one of the biologists) said he reads primarily biological journals
(Journal of Cell, Yeast, Journal of Tissue Engineering, microbiology journals).
Downstream frames
Downstream scientists’ frames also relate to the perceived novelty of nanomaterials, but
unlike upstream scientists, most downstream scientists see potential nanotechnology risks as
both old and new. On the basis of their knowledge about existing nanosized materials and
synthetic substances in the environment, these scientists expressed considerably more
concern about the potential public health risks related to emerging nanotechnologies than
did upstream scientists. Since none of them works directly with engineered nanomaterials,
the questions about personal risks related to working with these materials in the laboratory
were not relevant.
All four of the environmental engineers interviewed are chemists whose research involves
monitoring and/or assessing the transformation of synthetic substances in the environment.
Although these scientists reported that they do not know that much about nanotechnology
risks, they said that they are familiar with the basic reasons nanosized materials can be more
toxic than larger materials and are familiar with the challenges related to monitoring these
materials in the environment. All said that they had heard about risks related to engineered
180 M. C. Powell
nanomaterials from colleagues or at conferences, and expressed interest in learning more
about the issue. Because they already assess nanoscale materials in their work, they do not
see engineered nanomaterials as particularly new, although some mentioned potentially
novel aspects of recently engineered nanomaterials (see later).
Although downstream engineers expressed more concerns about potential public health
risks than did upstream engineers, two of them said they are not particularly worried about
risks related to emerging nanomaterials when compared with other environmental risk
issues. However, they also brought up uncertainties about the novel properties of nano-
materials and where these materials might go in the environment:
. . . a concern has to do with the fact that these devices do have electromagnetic waves and
things like that, or leachable metals . . . it’s possible that they will end up in our food
supplies, where they could do environmental damage . . . electromagnetic waves coming
off stuff, in the real world there’s not circuits going . . . if that’s in your stomach or in your
lungs, you might be concerned. (environmental engineer)
Similarly, an engineer who does research on the environmental transformation of existing
synthetic organics, pharmaceuticals, and nanosized biological materials in the environment
raised uncertainties about creating new types of matter that have not existed before:
I think if you take a historical perspective, over the last 100 years, in developing new
chemicals, many of them ended up having unintended consequences, and now that we’re
manipulating matter at an atomic scale and creating forms of matter that haven’t even
existed before, I think it’s a reasonable concern that we may be creating some things that
are, that will have unintended consequences – toxicity, or perhaps unforeseen interactions
with natural products, unforeseen interactions with toxins. (environmental engineer)
Several engineers mentioned uncertainties related to the challenges of monitoring
nanomaterials in the environment and monitoring human exposures – issues they are
familiar with because of their work in this area.
The toxicologists and the epidemiologist expressed much more concern about the
potential public health and environmental impacts of nanomaterials than did any of the
other downstream scientists. These scientists have extensive research experience looking at
health effects of a range of synthetic toxins currently in the environment (dioxins, pesticides,
PCBs, mercury). Even though they all rated their knowledge about nanotechnology risks as
fairly low, all but one had heard of potential risks related to nanotechnologies from
colleagues, and were familiar with the basic reasons why nanomaterials tend to be more
toxic than larger materials. Like the downstream engineers, they all expressed interest in
learning more about the issue.
The risk uncertainties toxicologists and epidemiologists brought up ranged from
questions about interference with cellular processes to transport through the body and
environmental interactions. Several toxicologists, for example, discussed the difficulties of
understanding how nanomaterials might interfere with complex cellular processes:
When an organism begins developing, there’s a huge network of signals that involve
diffusing compounds, molecules that are on the surface of the cell, chemical receptors,
shape receptors. There’s so many of them because the process is so complicated – the
chances of finding synthetic compounds that will resemble something and bind and cause
derangement seem quite high. So, I think that if you’re looking at things that might be
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? 181
dangerous, development is a good place to look . . . Dioxin, for example, that’s one we
know about – we think the receptor that dioxin binds to is associated with some sort of
developmental process, because when dioxin messes with this receptor, something goes
wrong . . . (toxicologist)
Another toxicologist raised broader uncertainties about how nanomaterials might get from a
product, into the body, and then into the environment:
Once this stuff is used in products, is it volatile, does it come off in a dust? Are there some
solubility properties that these things have that would allow them to go through the skin?
And if they’re going through the skin, then they can get into the blood, they’re going to
cross the blood – brain barrier, especially if they’re fat soluble . . . and how readily do they
interact chemically with other things in the body? And if they get into the environment, do
they become ionized and solubilized? Will they act as catalysts, and will they interact with
DNA? (toxicologist)
All the toxicologists and the epidemiologist raised concerns about ‘unforeseen’ or
‘unintended’ consequences related to the production and use of nanomaterials. One of the
toxicologists, for example, felt that it was extremely unlikely that there would not be
unintended consequences related to nanomaterials, given that they are designed specifically
to have unique chemical and physical properties:
History is filled with example after example of unintended and somewhat difficult to
predict consequences, so it would be absolutely extraordinary if through some miracle
nanotechnology was exempt from those patterns. But I think the chance that it’s exempt is
ridiculously small, just on general scientific principles. What is comes down to is, if you
have, the very things that make these materials so exciting for commercial, medicinal,
social, benefits is the fact that they have revolutionary chemical and physical properties.
And so the idea that you could have materials that have revolutionary chemical and
physical properties and at the same time you could make judgments about their possible
toxic effects without doing any experiments is just absurd. (toxicologist)
Finally, nearly all the downstream scientists made precautionary statements at some point in
the interviews. For example, one said the following:
I guess there should be some prioritization of which substances to worry about, which
substances are going to be produced in mass, we probably already have enough animal
studies . . . if they’re actually being made, we should monitor the workplace, we should
monitor the workers, for exposure, that would be a good start . . . We’ve all heard of the
precautionary principle. We’ve never used that principle, we let it out into the
environment and then have to deal with it later. In this case, why aren’t we testing first
before we make it – testing to see if it they’re going to hurt the environment and people?
(epidemiologist)
The types of information and interdisciplinary interactions downstream scientists are
exposed to likely shape their risk frames in key ways. In contrast to upstream scientists, who
primarily heard about nanotechnology risks in the mass media, most downstream scientists
had seen at least some scientific research, reports, or presentations about these issues. Half
of the downstream scientists said that they had read peer-reviewed articles about
182 M. C. Powell
nanotechnology risks, and all the rest said that they first heard about the issue from
colleagues or at conferences. Environmental engineers said they read journals such as
American Chemical Society journals, Environmental Science and Technology, and
American Water Works Association journals. One environmental engineer also said he
regularly reads Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and Environmental Health Perspectives.
The toxicologists and epidemiologists said they read Science, Nature, Toxicological Sciences,
Environmental Health Perspectives, and a variety of other toxicology and public health
journals.
Downstream scientists said they interact with a wide variety of other kinds of scientists in
their work, including biologists, ecologists, geologists, chemists, engineers, toxicologists,
epidemiologists, and social scientists (including sociology, communication, and policy
researchers). The types of conferences downstream scientists attend are also quite wide
ranging. Environmental engineers go to similar conferences as the upstream engineers do
(e.g. American Chemical Society conferences), but attend different divisions than do
upstream scientists (e.g. environmental, agricultural, and geological chemistry divisions).
Toxicologists attend Society of Toxicology conferences, Gordon conferences, and
ecotoxicology conferences, and the epidemiologist attends a range of environmental
epidemiology and public health conferences. At least four of the downstream scientists work
with, or for government agencies in some capacity, so they also interact with government
officials, risk communicators, and media on a regular basis.
Discussion
Although there were variations in risk frames among scientists within upstream and
downstream categories, some common patterns emerged. Overall, most upstream scientists
said that they do not think nanotechnology is anything new and they are not particularly
concerned about potential nanotechnology risks. In contrast, nearly all the downstream
scientists see nanotechnology as something that is both old and new, and most are
concerned about the potential environmental and health risks related to these materials.
Scientists’ narratives suggest that in both upstream and downstream locations, scientists
are drawing boundaries around what they feel are valid risk concerns (or not), primarily
based on what they consider valid science and what they do not. In other words, risk frames
are shaped by narrative boundary work (Gieryn 1999). The issue of whether or not
nanomaterials are new is central to the boundary work among both upstream and
downstream scientists. Interestingly, though, the perceived novelty of nanotechnology and
nanomaterials seems to play different, and sometimes opposite, roles in the boundary work
among the upstream versus the downstream scientists. Among many upstream scientists, the
perceived non-novelty of nanomaterials is a key reason for not being concerned about risks,
while among downstream scientists, both non-novelty and novelty of nanomaterials are
reasons for being concerned. Moreover, claims that nanotechnology and nanomaterials are
new or risky, among upstream scientists, are viewed as nonscience. Although many
downstream scientists also claimed that some nanomaterials are not new, they feel that
concerns about potential risks of recently engineered nanomaterials have merit, based on
their knowledge about existing nanosized materials. Moreover, they feel that novel types of
engineered nanomaterials might raise new and unpredictable risks. To them, in other words,
the concerns about nanomaterials’ potential risks, whether nanomaterials are new or old, are
scientific.
Boundaries of risk frames shifted, however, when different questions were addressed.
Several of the upstream scientists who questioned the idea that nanomaterials are new also
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? 183
stressed their unique and unpredictable properties elsewhere in the interviews. For example,
one scientist, asked about his research, said that his group focuses on nanomaterials because
‘when the system sizes become nanometer in dimensions, it turns out that the properties,
like other materials’ properties, change significantly when you go to these dimensions’
(chemical engineer). Clearly, this scientist feels that the novelty claim has scientific merit in
this context. Later in the interview, however, the same scientist expressed considerable
frustration that nanomaterials, when compared with larger materials, are perceived as posing
novel risks because of their small size. Several other upstream scientists expressed similar
thoughts about the scientific basis of these claims, and many noted that people making these
claims are fearful, irrational laypersons, implying that they are not scientific claims. A few
scientists explicitly called risk concerns ‘political’ or ‘societal’. In sum, risk concerns based
on newness are nonscience, while claims about the exciting potential of nanotechnology
research, based on similar novelty claims, are science. These findings parallel those of
previous studies on how scientists view citizen concerns about potential genetically modified
organism (GMO) risks (Cook et al. 2006).
Risk frames also varied depending on how boundaries were drawn around uncertainties
about nanotechnology risks, and not surprisingly, these boundaries were related to whether
or not scientists perceived nanomaterials as new. With a few exceptions, upstream scientists
had relatively little to say about risk uncertainties beyond questions about why the public
and ‘activists’ are concerned about the risks. Risk uncertainties, again, were treated as
societal, not scientific, issues. However, several upstream scientists mentioned uncertainties
related to controlling the process of making nanomaterials – uncertainties they address in
their day-to-day research. Will nanomaterials react with cell membranes the way they are
designing them to? What properties of nanomaterials might affect these interactions? Will
they target and kill bacteria and yeast and therefore be useful pharmaceuticals? In other
words, nanotechnology research uncertainties are seen as new, valid, and exciting science,
but nanotechnology risk uncertainties are based on social, emotional, and irrational issues.
Ironically, the types of risk uncertainties raised by downstream scientists are similar and in
some cases identical to the day-to-day research uncertainties raised by upstream scientists.
How will nanomaterials interact with cell membranes? Will they interact with specific cell
receptors? Will they kill microorganisms? What properties of nanomaterials are likely to be
most important in these interactions? In contrast to upstream scientists, however,
downstream scientists view these uncertainties from very different perspectives, and place
them into broader and longer-term contexts. If nanomaterials interact with cell membranes,
what effects might this cause at the organismal level over the long term? How might these
interactions affect developing organisms? If nanomaterials kill bacteria and other
microorganisms, what effects might they have on human health and ecosystems over the
long term? How will we detect and monitor these substances in the environment, and which
properties of nanomaterials are most important to measure? Upstream scientists address
similar questions in their research, but on much smaller spatial and temporal scales.
Interestingly, uncertainties represent opportunities for new research among both
upstream and downstream scientists. For upstream scientists, uncertainties suggest the
possibility of new ways to design a novel material or product, while for downstream
scientists, they represent a new environmental or health risk research area they might
pursue. However, the reasons for addressing these uncertainties in their research – and the
conceptual and methodological challenges involved in addressing them – are substantially
different. While upstream scientists need to address these uncertainties to make sure the
nanomaterials they design do what they are supposed to do in various applications and
usually within fairly defined contexts, downstream scientists address them to better
184 M. C. Powell
understand the potential health and environmental risks of these materials if they get out of
the research laboratories and into air, water, food, soil, and consumer products.
What factors influence the contrasting boundary work and risk frames among upstream
and downstream scientists? Clearly, scientists in both upstream and downstream locations
may, knowingly or not, draw boundaries around what they consider to be ‘science’ or
‘nonscience’ in ways that promote their own research agendas. Upstream scientists in this
study are funded by the government to do nanotechnology research, and a few are also
closely affiliated with nanotechnology companies. Clearly, it is in their interests to promote
the claim that nanotechnology is new and exciting science, while risk concerns, which are
likely to slow research and development, are viewed as unscientific. None of the downstream
scientists in this study, on the other hand, are currently funded to do research on the risks of
nanomaterials. It could be in their interests, however, to stress uncertainties about the
environmental and health effects of nanomaterials – because they may get funded to do
research to address these uncertainties in the future.
Interviews suggest, moreover, that broader nonstrategic factors may influence scientists’
risk frames as much or more than strategic factors. Different disciplinary backgrounds, work
experiences, and information exposures among upstream and downstream scientists seem to
shape the kinds of knowledge and uncertainties they think of when they consider
nanomaterial risks, whether or not they consider these uncertainties ‘scientific’ issues, and
the risk frames they construct. Upstream scientists’ disciplinary training prepares them to
create specific materials that function within fairly well-defined contexts. They typically
address research problems related to creating new materials at the atomic, molecular, or
cellular level; they do not often consider broader levels (e.g. whole organisms, ecosystems)
in their work. The academic training and work experiences of downstream scientists
interviewed for this study, in contrast, are more interdisciplinary and less specialized. Their
backgrounds prepare them to address broader questions and uncertainties. Given these
different backgrounds, it makes sense that upstream scientists view risks and uncertainties
more narrowly, and downstream scientists view them more broadly.
Interdisciplinary interactions and information exposures, although addressed very
generally in this study, also seem to influence upstream and downstream risk frames.
Upstream scientists heard about nanotechnology risks primarily from media and popular
science magazines, and only one seemed aware of the nanotechnology risk discussions going
on among government agencies, scientists, and insurance companies worldwide. Many
downstream scientists, in comparison, had research experience with existing nanosized
materials or other synthetic substances, and had discussed risk issues related to engineered
nanomaterials with colleagues. Several had read peer-reviewed articles about nanomaterial
risks. Moreover, they regularly read articles about health and environmental issues and risks,
since this is the focus of their work.
The fact that upstream researchers heard about risks from nanomaterials primarily
through mass media (versus peer-reviewed papers) might be part of the reason they tend to
believe that these issues do not have scientific merit. Upstream scientists’ comments suggest
that they view media coverage of nanotechnology risks as representing public fears or
political concerns, as opposed to scientific concerns. The majority of the upstream scientists
interviewed in this study had not read any scientific papers on nanotechnology risks, nor had
they been involved in discussions about these issues with colleagues. Based on the kinds of
journals they said they read, it is unlikely that they would come across peer-reviewed
research articles on nanomaterial risks or other health and environmental risks. Moreover,
they are not often exposed to scientific discussions about environmental and health issues
more generally in their work and/or collegial interactions. For example, none of the
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? 185
upstream scientists interviewed said they interact with scientists who study environmental
health-related issues as part of their ongoing research, even though all these scientists are at
the same university. Consequently, discussions between upstream and downstream
scientists about risks related to nanotechnology are unlikely to occur. In sum, these
findings suggest that among upstream researchers, lack of exposure to scientific papers and
discussions about nanotechnology risks – and reliance instead on mass media for
nanotechnology risk information – may be key reasons why many of these researchers
frame risks concerns as unfounded, and some consider them ‘hysterical’ or ‘garbage’.
Interviews also suggest that scientists in upstream and downstream locations have
different perspectives on scientific uncertainties that could influence their perceptions about
control. Upstream scientists, by the very fact that they are upstream, inherently have more
control – and need more control – in their scientific research projects. Comments among
upstream scientists about scientific uncertainties in their research centered on their need to
control and predict processes at the chemical, molecular, and cellular levels. In contrast,
downstream scientists, by the fact that they are downstream, and dealing with much broader
processes, have less control than do upstream scientists. Their day-to-day research focuses
on understanding complex combinations of uncontrolled (and in many cases, uncontrollable)
environmental variables, complex combinations of synthetic substances coming from a
multitude of sources, and numerous health and environmental outcomes related to these
substances. Downstream scientists, ironically, often study the consequences of upstream
scientific projects that became unplanned long-term ‘experiments’ after synthetic materials
left laboratories and entered the environment. Downstream scientists did not design these
experiments, did not choose the experiments’ parameters, and therefore have relatively little
control over them.
Downstream scientists, in other words, are accustomed to dealing with much broader and
longer-term uncertainties and more unknowns in their day-to-day research. Moreover,
downstream scientists often work in some capacity with academic departments or
government agencies responsible for monitoring, mitigating, or understanding the public
health effects of harmful synthetic substances in the environment. Consequently, they are
likely to be more aware of the substantial political, economic, environmental, and human
health costs associated with the widespread production and use of certain synthetic materials
than are the scientists who created them. Given these experiences, and the fact that their
scientific work includes more inherent uncertainties and uncontrollable parameters, it is
perhaps not surprising that they emphasized unforeseen consequences and made
precautionary statements about potential risks of emerging nanotechnologies.
It should be recognized, of course, that this study is based on a small, nonrandom sample
of scientists from only one university. However, it is a major research university and a leader
in the nanotechnology field. Moreover, it is likely that the types of disciplinary and
communication factors that seem to shape the risk frames of scientists in this study – who
received Master’s and Ph.D.s from universities all over the United States – are similar to
those that shape risk frames of scientists at other large research institutions. One could
surmise, based on this, that upstream and downstream scientists at other large research
institutions might construct similar types of risk frames. That said, conclusions from this
small sample of scientists cannot be generalized with any certainty.
Conclusions
Why examine scientists’ risk frames, and why compare upstream frames with downstream
frames during the development of new technologies? Upstream scientists, who develop new
186 M. C. Powell
technologies and materials, are in critical locations temporally and spatially in these
developments. During the process of designing and creating materials that might later enter
products and the environment, they make key decisions about the characteristics of these
materials and technologies – e.g. what kinds of materials to create (or not), how to design
them, and what kinds of processes to use. These decisions could influence whether or not
these materials become health or environmental problems in the future. Moreover,
upstream scientists are the ones most likely to be exposed to new materials during the
research and development phase. In the case of nanotechnology, health and safety
regulations are being developed but are not in place yet (NIOSH 2005). While regulations
are being developed – and after they are in place – whether or not research scientists and
their students take precautions in their laboratories will depend in part on whether or not
they are aware of risk concerns and whether or not they believe they have merit.
Moreover, upstream scientists’ first-hand knowledge about specific research processes,
and the physical and social contexts in which they interact with various materials, could help
risk assessors and risk communicators (Alaszewski 2005). Health and safety experts need
this ‘tacit’ knowledge to assess what the potential laboratory exposures to nanomaterials
might be and develop appropriate precautions (NIOSH 2005). Similarly, in order to
adequately understand potential risks, government health and environmental agencies need
more information about the kinds and characteristics of nanomaterials currently being
produced (NIOSH 2005). Upstream scientists, who create these materials, could provide
some of this information. If they do not know about the risks, or believe that they are based
on ‘hysterical’ and irrational concerns, it is unlikely that they will be willing to interact with
regulators and risk assessors.
Downstream scientists, in contrast, typically are not funded to do research on risks related
to technologies unless the technologies (or their by-products) are associated with public
health or environmental problems. This usually does not happen until years or decades after
the technologies are developed. Yet downstream scientists’ research training and
experiences prepare them to address many of the challenges involved with understanding
and mitigating these risks within actual environmental and public health contexts.
Currently, downstream scientists who have research experience with nanosized particles –
such as toxicologists, ecotoxicologists, and epidemiologists – are raising most of the
concerns about potential nanotechnology risks (e.g. Borm and Kreyling 2004, Hardman
2005, Kipen and Laskin 2005). Including more downstream scientists in upstream
discussions about risks might result in more comprehensive risk assessments and help
prevent negative health and environmental consequences.
More broadly, scientists’ risk frames are important to understand because scientists play
powerful roles in framing technological developments in society. In the case of nano-
technology, coalitions of corporate, government, and academic scientists are developing risk
assessments that will drive many of the government policies on nanotechnology health and
safety issues (Holsapple et al. 2005). Scientists’ frames can also powerfully shape mass media
discourses on science, technology, and risks (Nelkin 1987, Friedman et al. 1999). Academic
institutions often carefully control and tailor scientific information and release it via public
relations efforts, and scientific sources can have a lot of influence over these releases (Nelkin
1987, Ten Eyck 1999, Kiernan 2000). Because of their key roles within powerful societal
institutions, in other words, scientists’ risk frames can influence government policies,
regulations, media stories, and research funding in important ways.
This exploratory study, albeit based on a small sample at one academic institution,
suggests that upstream and downstream scientists’ frames about the potential risks of an
important new technology differ in key ways, and are shaped by contrasting disciplinary
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? 187
backgrounds, information exposures, and interactions with colleagues. Future research
should explore the risk frames of a larger number of scientists in different kinds of research
institutions, industries, governments, and nongovernmental organizations. Moreover,
scholars should examine how scientists’ nanotechnology risk frames change through time.
Nanotechnology development is expected to skyrocket in the next decade (Roco 2004). As
this development continues, more scientific research on risks will be published, different
kinds of actors will get involved with the issue, and policies and regulations will be
developed. Media coverage will reflect these changing dynamics. How will these changes
shape scientists’ risk frames in coming years?
References
Aitken, R. J., Creely, K. S. and Tran, C. L. (2004) Nanoparticles: An Occupational Hygiene Review (Suffolk, United
Kingdom: Health & Safety Executive).
Alaszewski, A. (2005) Risk communication: Identifying the importance of social context. Health, Risk & Society,
7(2), 101 – 105.
Althaus, C. E. (2005) A disciplinary perspective on the epistemological status of risk. Risk Analysis, 25(3),
567 – 588.
Altheide, D. L. (1996) Qualitative Media Analysis (Qualitative Research Methods Series, Vol. 38) (Thousands Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications).
Aronowitz, S. (1988) Science As Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society (Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press).
BCC Research (2005) Market Research Reports and Technical Publications, Nanomaterials Markets by Type
(December). Available at http://www.bccresearch.com
Beck, U. (1995) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell).
Borm, P. A. and Kreyling, W. (2004) Toxicological hazards of inhaled nanoparticles—Potential implications for
drug delivery. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 4(5), 521 – 531.
Cook, G., Peter, T., Robbins, P. T. and Pieri, E. (2006) Words of mass destruction: British newspaper
coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of
Science, 15, 5 – 29.
Cook, G., Pieri, E. and Robbins, P. T. (2004) ‘The scientists think and the public feels:’ Expert perceptions of the
discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15(4), 433 – 449.
Ding, L., Stilwell, J., Zhang, T., Elboudwarej, O., Jiang, H., Selegue, J. P., Cooke, P. A., Gray, J. W. and
Chen, F. F. (2005) Molecular characterization of the cytotoxic mechanism of multiwall carbon nanotubes and
nano-onions on human skin fibroblast. Nano Letters, 5(12), 2448 – 2464.
Donaldson, K., Stone, V., Tran, C. L., Kreyling, W. and Borm, P. J. A. (2004) Nanotoxicology. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 61, 727 – 728.
Driedger, S. M. and Eyles, J. (2003) Different frames, different fears: Communicating about chlorinated drinking
water and cancer in the Canadian media. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1279 – 1293.
Environmental Law Institute (2005) Securing the promise of nanotechnology: Is U.S. law up to the job? The
Environmental Law Institute and the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC, USA.
Fisher, M., Small, B., Roth, H., Mallon, M. and Jerebine, B. (2005) What do individuals in different science groups
within a life sciences organization think about genetic modification? Public Understanding of Science, 14, 317 – 326.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S. and Rogers, C. (eds.) (1999) Communicating Uncertainty Media Coverage of New
and Controversial Science (Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Funtowics, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. (1990) Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (Theory and Decision Library,
Series A 15) (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Gieryn, T. F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Gitlin, T. (1980) The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left (Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press).
Godin, B. and Gingras, Y. (2000) What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A
multidimensional model. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 43 – 58.
Harding, S. (1998) Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies (Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press).
188 M. C. Powell
Hardman, R. (2005) A toxicological review of quantum dots: Toxicity depends on physico-chemical and
environmental factors. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(2), 165 – 172.
Hett, A. (2004) Small matter, many unknowns (Swiss Reinsurance Company). Accessed 20 February 2006, available
at www.swissre.com/
Holsapple, M. P., Farland, W. H., Landry, T. D., Monteiro-riviere, N. A., Carter, J. M., Walker, N. J. and
Thomas, K. V. (2005) Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials. II. Toxicological
and safety evaluation of nanomaterials, current challenges and data needs. Toxicological Sciences, 88(1),
12 – 17.
Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A. and Webler, T. (2001) Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action (Sterling, VA:
Earthscan).
Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton NJ: Princeton
University Press).
Jefferson, D. A. (2000) The surface activity of ultrafine particles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London Series A, 358, 2683 – 2691.
Kiernan, V. (2000) The Mars meteorite: A case study in controls on dissemination of science news. Public
Understanding of Science, 9, 15 – 41.
Kipen, H. M. and Laskin, D. L. (2005) Smaller is not always better: Nanotechnology yields nanotoxicology.
American Journal of Physiology, 289, L696 – L697.
Kraus, N., Malmfors, T. and Slovic, P. (1992) Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk
Analysis, 12(2), 215 – 231.
Krayer Von Krauss, M. P., Casman, E. A. and Small, M. J. (2004) Elicitation of expert judgments of uncertainty in
the risk assessment of herbicide-tolerant oilseed crops. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1515 – 1527.
Krewski, D., Burnett, R. T., Goldberg, M., Hoover, K., Siematycki, J., Abrahamowicz, M. and White, W. (2005)
Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study, Part II: Validation and replication. Inhalation Toxicology, 17(7/8),
335 – 342.
Lam, C. W., James, J. T., Mcclusky, R. and Hunter, R. L. (2004) Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon
nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicological Sciences, 77, 126 – 134.
Lukasiewicz, J. (1994) The Ignorance Explosion: Understanding Industrial Civilization (Ottawa, Canada: Carleton
University Press).
Lux Research, Inc. (2004) Revenue from nanotechnology-enabled products to equal IT and Telecom by 2014, exceed
Biotech by 10 times. Accessed 21 December 2005, available at www.luxresearch.com/press/RELEASE_Sizing
Report.pdf
McMahon, S., Lutz, R. and Meyer, Jon’a. (2002) Attitudes about electric and magnetic fields: Do scientists and
other risk experts perceive risk similarly? Journal of Environmental Health, 65(5), 9 – 12.
Muller, J., Haux, F., Moreau, N., Misson, P., Heilier, J. F., Delos, M., Arras, M., Fonseca, A., Nagy, J. B. and
Lison, D. (2005) Respiratory toxicity of multi-wall carbon nanotubes. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 207,
221 – 231.
National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2005) Nanotechnology, approaches to safe
nanotechnology; An information exchange with NIOSH. Accessed 10 December 2005, available at www.cdc.gov/
niosh/topics/nanotech/nano_exchange.html
Nelkin, D. (1987) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York, NY: W.H. Freeman).
Nelkin, D. (1995) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon (New York, NY: W.H. Freeman).
Oberdorster, G., Oberdorster, E. and Oberdorster, J. (2005) Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from
studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 823 – 839.
Pope, C. A., Burnett, R. T., Thun, M. J., Calle, E. E., Krewski, D., Ito, K. and Thurston, G. D. (2002) Lung
cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 287, 1132 – 1141.
Powell, M. and Kanarek, M. (2006) Nanomaterial health effects, Part 2: Uncertainties and recommendations for
the future. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 102(3), 18 – 23.
Preining, O. (1998) The physical nature of very, very small particles and its impact on their behavior. Journal of
Aerosol Science, 29, 481 – 495.
Riem, H. H. and Wynne, B. (2002) In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance. Nature, 416(6877), 123.
Roco, M. C. (2004) The US nanotechnology initiative after 3 years (2001 – 2003). Journal of Nanoparticle Research,
6, 1 – 10.
Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and
uncertainties. Accessed 1 January 2006, available at www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm.
Schutz, H. and Wiedemann, P. M. (2005) How to deal with dissent among experts: Risk evaluation of EMF in a
scientific dialogue. Journal of Risk Research, 8(6), 531 – 545.
New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? 189
Slovic, P., Torbjorn, M., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N. and Bartlett, S. (1995) Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert
and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15(6), 661 – 674.
Smithson, M. (1989) Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms (New York, NY: Springer-Verlag).
Stocking, S. H. (1998) On drawing attention to ignorance. Science Communication, 20(1), 165 – 178.
Ten Eyck, T. A. (1999) Shaping a food safety debate: Control efforts of newspaper reporters and sources in the food
irradiation controversy. Science Communication, 20(4), 426 – 450.
Appendix 1: Interview questions
1. What is your scientific background?
2. Could you describe your current research?
3. What kinds of academic conferences do you usually go to?
4. What kinds of journals do you usually read and publish in?
5. What kinds of scientists do you interact with in your day-to-day research? In other
contexts?
6. What kinds of nanoscale materials do you work with/make? What are the current or
potential applications?
7. Are you aware of potential risks related to nanotechnologies or nanomaterials? If yes,
where did you hear/read about them?
8. How would you rate your knowledge about these risks? Explain.
9. How would you characterize these potential risks, based on what you know?
10. Are you worried about these risks?
11. What do you think are main uncertainties and unknowns about these risks?
12. Do you think you personally face any risks related to these materials? Why/why not?
13. Do you or your students take any precautions in your laboratory when working with
nanomaterials?
14. Where do nanomaterials used in your laboratory go after you use them (e.g. into fume
hood, special trash barrels, etc.)?
15. Do you think anyone else (e.g. the public) faces risks related to nano materials? Why/
why not?
16. Do you think nanomaterials pose any risk to the environment? Why/why not?
190 M. C. Powell
