Religion & Nanotechnology

Posted without comment:

Is nanotechnology morally acceptable?

For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small.

Addressing scientists at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.

"Our data show a much lower percentage of people who agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable in the U.S. than in Europe," says Scheufele, an expert on public opinion and science and technology.

Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules. The ability to engineer matter at that scale has the potential to produce a vast array of new technologies that could influence everything from computers to medicine. Already, dozens of products containing nanoscale materials or devices are on the market.

In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.

"There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology," says Scheufele.

Why the big difference?

The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."

The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.

He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.

The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.

"They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."

The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, Scheufele says. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.

[Hat tip to IEET]

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog

Comments

[James]

Ashamed to be American much? I'd like to question the study results, but casual observation of my neighbors supports the study data. :)

I wonder what percentage of respondents would actually relinquish all the tech they use that doesn't "occur in nature". My guess is, not many of them. Ignorant hypocrites.

[stephen c]

ha. i actually came over to voice my shame and dismay with this study. can it be true that less than a third of people are okay with nanotech development? what is going on with this country?

[hawkeye72]

yeah, giggle & chortle away. It is again an article about ignorant Americans as opposed to the enlightened Europeans. What is the "absolute" definition of morality?
Ok, so since there isn't one let's go immediately to the subjective opinion of the study operator. They must be a good, fair and reasonable arbitor without an stake on the game.
There could be many potential reasons why one might answer that this line of research could be immoral. An instinctive distrust for large institutions and especially larger government differ greatly between old Europe and the US. I'd also throw out diminished confidence in scientists as selfless and ethical in light of recent news and also their willingness to pick sides publicly on political debates and thus become political themseles; agenda driven rather than seekers of truth.

Some of this goes back to a core belief system, but I fear science may again be trying to blame religion here rather than taking this feedback and considering how they might review themselves. Any personal accountability here? ... Maybe??

[Josh]

I'm still amazed though that the European countries didn't have 90-100% acceptance of nanotechnology. It indicates a significant camp of people with reservations, and I fear that one minor nanotech incident could easily see that camp grow to a majority, causing similar moratoriums to those which outlawed GM crops in European countries.

[Tom Craver]

Only thing I can figure is that people associate nanotechnology with "technology out of control" - gray goo, terminator robots, maybe also immortality and singularity. I could see religious people, greens, and simply "concerned citizens" feeling that those things are representative of nanotechnology, and therefore nanotech is immoral.

It doesn't bode well for nanotechnology avoiding the "Frankenfoods" fate - emotional appeals substituting for any rational objective analysis of real risks and how to appropriately deal with them.

[John B]

I'm a little confused on this survey. As always, the devil's in the details with surveys (or statistics), and no details on the questions asked, the order they were asked, or even if this was telephone versus face-to-face polling. *shrug* The author of the study claims that it's accurate within 3% at his website http://nanopublic.blogspot.com/ but his methodology is not expressed.

I'd also note that this gentleman appears to have some relatively high profile linkages in academia & politics from his CV.

Dunno. Would love to learn more about this, but suspect it's unavailable. If anyone comes across the data as available, I'd be quite curious to see it.

-John