↓ Skip to main content

Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1795-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Capon, James Gillespie, Margaret Rolfe, Wayne Smith

Abstract

Policy makers and regulators are constantly required to make decisions despite the existence of substantial uncertainty regarding the outcomes of their proposed decisions. Understanding stakeholder views is an essential part of addressing this uncertainty, which provides insight into the possible social reactions and tolerance of unpredictable risks. In the field of nanotechnology, large uncertainties exist regarding the real and perceived risks this technology may have on society. Better evidence is needed to confront this issue. We undertook a computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) survey of the Australian public and a parallel survey of those involved in nanotechnology from the academic, business and government sectors. Analysis included comparisons of proportions and logistic regression techniques. We explored perceptions of nanotechnology risks both to health and in a range of products. We examined views on four trust actors. The general public's perception of risk was significantly higher than that expressed by other stakeholders. The public bestows less trust in certain trust actors than do academics or government officers, giving its greatest trust to scientists. Higher levels of public trust were generally associated with lower perceptions of risk. Nanotechnology in food and cosmetics/sunscreens were considered riskier applications irrespective of stakeholder, while familiarity with nanotechnology was associated with a reduced risk perception. Policy makers should consider the disparities in risk and trust perceptions between the public and influential stakeholders, placing greater emphasis on risk communication and the uncertainties of risk assessment in these areas of higher concern. Scientists being the highest trusted group are well placed to communicate the risks of nanotechnologies to the public.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 74 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 18%
Researcher 10 13%
Other 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Chemistry 4 5%
Other 24 31%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2015.
All research outputs
#1,930,921
of 23,538,320 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,126
of 15,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,799
of 266,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#36
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,538,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.