nanoREV.

National Science and Engineering Indicators 2008

The National Science Board (NSB), made up of several scientists, researchers and educators (all of whom also happen to have fancy PhDs) and serve as the governing board of the National Science Foudnation (NSF) recently presented “Science and Engineering Indicators 2008” to the President and Congress. This report summarizes information on science, mathematics, and engineering education at all levels; the scientific and engineering workforce; U.S. and international research and development performance and competitiveness in high technology; and public attitudes and understanding of science and engineering. The report also introduces a short section on public attitudes regarding nanotechnology.

While public surveys regarding the publics’ attitudes toward nanotechnology may be useful in some respect, actually making decisions based on these “knowledge” figures may be premature. However, since nanotechnology is on the 10-year, 20-year and maybe even 30-year plan for mainstream usefulness, it’s important to follow these trends, especially with younger Americans who will comprise the high-tech workforce that will be required to keep “USA, #1!”, as they say.

In their report, NSB states that:

“The general public remains relatively unfamiliar with nanotechnology. Among 2006 GSS respondents, over half (54%) had heard “nothing at all” about it. An additional 25% had heard “just a little,” and smaller proportions had heard either “some” (15%) or “a lot” (5%) (appendix table 7-28). These numbers are similar to those that Cobb and Macoubrie (2004) reported in a survey done 2 years earlier. Familiarity with nanotechnology was at about the same level in Europe in 2005, where 44% of survey respondents said they had heard of it (Gaskell et al. 2005).“

As a lot of this data was gathered in 2006, it’s hard to say how these numbers would differ now in 2008. As some of the newer surveys and studies have shown, knowledge alone of “nanotechnology” isn’t necessarily a great indicator of its acceptance.

Additional findings from the report:

Even among the minority of GSS respondents who had heard of nanotechnology, knowledge levels do not appear to be high (appendix table 7-7). Over half (57%) correctly responded true when asked whether “nanotechnology involves manipulating extremely small units of matter, such as individual atoms, in order to produce better materials,” but many
(36%) said they did not know, and a few (7%) thought this statement was false. About half (51%) did not know whether or not “the properties of nanoscale materials often differ fundamentally and unexpectedly from the properties of the same materials at larger scales.” For this question, 39% correctly answered true and the remaining 9% answered false.

When nanotechnology is defined in surveys, Americans express favorable expectations for it. After receiving a brief explanation of nanotechnology, GSS respondents were asked about the likely balance between the benefits and harms of nanotechnology. About 40% said the “benefits will outweigh the harmful results,” 19% expected the two to be about equal, and only 9% expected the harms to predominate (appendix table 7-29). The fact that about half of respondents either gave a neutral response
(19%) or said they didn’t know (32%) suggests that opinion may be open to change as Americans become more familiar with this technology. In a 2005 survey that asked Americans and Canadians about risks and benefits in two separate questions, about half of Americans foresaw substantial benefit or some benefit from nanotechnology, compared with 14% who saw substantial risk or some risk; Canadian responses were almost as optimistic (Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat 2005). Eurobarometer
data, though not precisely comparable, indicate that European opinion is generally consistent with that of Americans (European Commission 2005b). In the 2005 Eurobarometer, 48% of Europeans expected nanotechnology to have “a positive effect on our way of life in the next 20 years,” whereas only 8% expected a negative effect. Although familiarity with nanotechnology is similar in Europe and the United States, more Europeans than Americans said they did not know whether or not this new
technology would have a positive effect.

Among Americans, favorable expectations for nanotechnology are associated with more education, greater science knowledge, and greater familiarity with nanotechnology. Men are also somewhat more likely to have favorable expectations than women (appendix table 7-29). Patterns are similar to those for responses concerning S&T generally. Unlike in Canada, where younger people’s views of nanotechnology are significantly more positive than the views of older people, Americans of all ages have similar opinions (Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat 2005).

Read the whole report here.