Browse > Article

Risk Communication Study for Nanotechnology Using Risk Cognitive Map  

Choi, Chan-Woong (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation)
Jeong, Ji-Yoon (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation)
Hwang, Myung-Sil (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation)
Jung, Ki-Kyung (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation)
Lee, Hyo-Min (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation)
Lee, Kwang-Ho (Risk Analysis & Research Division, Food Safety Evaluation Department, National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation)
Publication Information
Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology / v.25, no.3, 2010 , pp. 187-195 More about this Journal
Abstract
Nanotechnology is the fastest growing area in scientific research and it has important applications in a wide variety of fields. Nevertheless, consumers encountered this new technology without any identification of risks and benefits. Also until now, there are no specific safety evaluation methods for nanotechnology. For this reason, we studied risk communication strategy for nanotechnology to prepare its application in commercialized products on public. A survey was conducted to identify the differences in perception between public (N=110) and expert (N=37) toward applied nanotechnology in food, drugs and cosmetic products. The survey results were used to draw up a risk cognitive map which was introduced by Paul Slovic, and the perception level of public and expert on nanotechnology was evaluated. As a result of the survey, public recognized nanotechnology as "unknown but low dread" risk factor, but expert recognized it as "unknown and high dread" risk factor. These results indicate that there are perception differences between two groups. Several risk communication strategies are reported including care, consensus and risk communication. In the case of nanotechnology, it contains both risks and benefits. Considering the nature of nanotechnology, the "consensus communication" which informs consumers about risks and benefits of issues is the most appropriate strategy.
Keywords
Nanotechnology; Risk cognitive map; Risk communication;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J and Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 2006; 1(3): 153-155.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Ligade VS, Sreedhar D, Ajay M and Udupa N. Nanotechnology in cosmeceuticals: Benefits vs risks, Cur Sci 2007; 93(5): 597.
3 Lundgren RE and McMakin A. Risk communication: a handbook for communicating environmental safety and health risks (2nd ed). Ohio: Battelle Press; 1998.
4 Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E and Oberdorster J. Nanotoxicology an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles, Environ Health Perspect 2005; 113(7): 823-839.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Powers KW, Brown SC, Krishna VB, Wasdo SC, Moudgil BM and Roberts SM. Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, Part VI: Characterization of nanoscale particles for toxicological evaluation, Toxicol Sci 2006; 90(2): 296-303.
6 Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering nanotechnology working Group. Nanotechnology: Views of the General Public, Quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the Nanotechnology study, 2004.
7 Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E and Guston DH. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public, Nat Nanotechnol 2007; 2(12): 732- 734.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Slovic P. Perception of risk, Science 1987; 236(4799): 280-285.   DOI
9 Slovic P. Informing and educating the public about risk, In Perception of Risk, Lofstedt RE (eds), EARTHSCAN, London and Sterling. 1986; 2000: 183-198.
10 Slovic P, Fischhoff B and Lichtenstein S. Facts and Fears, Understanding Perceived Risk. Schwing RC and Albers WA Jr (eds): Societal Risk Assessment, How Safe is enough? New York: Plenum Press 1980. pp. 181-214.
11 Woo JM, Ryeom TK, Hwang JH, Oh WY, Jang DD and Lee HM. The successful risk communication strategies for food risk factors, Safe Food 2007; 2(2): 11-18.
12 Yoon CS. Potential health risks and issues of nanoparticles, Biochem News 2007; 27(3): 7-19.
13 Cui D, Tian F, Coyer SR, Wang J, Pan B, Gao F, He R and Zhang Y. Effects of antisense-myc-conjugated singlewalled carbon nanotubes on HL-60 cells, J Nanosci Nanotechnol 2007; 7(4-5): 1639-1646.   DOI
14 과학기술부, 한국과학기술기획평가원. 나노기술영향평가보고서 2005.
15 차용진. 위험인식과 위험분석의 정책적 합의: 서울과 수도권 일반주민을 중심으로, 한국정책학회보 2007; 16(1): 97-116.