Back to Nanotechnology Risk Resources Mainpage
| Research Papers |
| Anderson, A, Allan, S., Petersen, A. & Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27(2), 200-220. Abstract |
| Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Public attitudes towards nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4, 561-570. |
| Bainbridge, W. S. (2004). Sociocultural meanings of nanotechnology: research methodologies, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 285-299. |
| BfR (German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment). (November 2006). Consumer Conference on Nanotechnology in Foods, Cosmetics and Textiles. Report |
| - NEW - Burri, R.V., Bellucci, S. (March 2008). Public perception of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(3): 387-391. Abstract. |
| Castellini, O.M, Walejko, G. K., Holladay, C. E. , Theim, T. J., Zenner, G. M., and Crone, W. C. (2006). Nanotechnology and the public: Effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. Abstract. |
| Cobb, M. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2): 221-239. Abstract. |
| Cobb, M. D. & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 295-405. Paper Draft |
| Currall, S.C., King, E.B., Lane, N., Madera, J. and Turner, S. (December 2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology, Volume 1 No 3: 153 - 155 |
| Einseidel, E. (December 2005). In the public eye: The early landscape of nanotechnology among Canadian and U.S. publics. AzoNano—Online Journal of Nanotechnology. Article. |
| Elkin, N. (2005). Nanotechnology: A National Survey of Consumers. Report prepared for Dandolo Partners for the Australian government. |
| Economic and Social Research Council. (March 2007). Nanotechnology: From the Science to the Social. Report |
| Friedman, S.M. & Egolf, B.P. (2005). Nanotechnology: Risks and the media. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Winter issue, pp. 5-11. |
| Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2004). Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials, 3(8), 496-496. |
| Gaskell, G. Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2005). Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 81-90. |
| Hornig-Priest, S. (2005). Commentary—Room at the bottom of Pandora’s box: Peril and promise in communicating nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2): 292-299. |
| Heller, K.H. (January 2007). Nanotechnology and society. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9,1: 5-10. Abstract. |
| Jones, R. (May 2007). What have we learned from public engagement? Nature Nanotechnology, 2(5). 262-263. Article. |
| Kahan, D.M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Cohen, G. (March 2007). Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values. Woodrow Wilson’s Nanotechnology Project, Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School. Report. |
| Kleinman, D.L., Powell, M. et al. (April 2007). A Toolkit for Democratizing Science and Technology Policy: The Practical Mechanics of Organizing a Consensus Conference. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(2): 154-169. Abstract |
| Lee, C., Scheufele, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2): 240-267. Abstract |
| - NEW - Powell, M., Colin, M. (September 2008). Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology: What Would it Really Take? Science Communication, 30(1): 126-136. Abstract. |
| Scheufele, D., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7: 659-667. |
| Schummer, J. (2005). Reading nano: the public interest in nanotechnology as reflected in purchase patterns of books. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 163-183. |
| Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.E., Kastenholz, H., Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, Article in Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 14 March 2007. Article |
| Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A. and Kastenholz, H. (February 2007). Risks and nanotechnology: the public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nature Nanotechnology, 2,2: 67. Article |
| Stephens, L.F. (2005). News narratives about nano S & T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 27 (2): 175-199. Abstract |
| What do the public think of nano? A short synopsis of findings done for the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Link. |
| Wilkinson, C., Allan, S., Anderson, A., Petersen, A. (2007). From uncertainty to risk?: Scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health Risk & Society, 9 (2): 145-157. |
| The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the independent research firm Peter D. Hart Research Associates. Public Awareness of Nanotechnology: What do Americans know? Who do they trust? (September 2006). Report |
