ILS
I NA
200
9 –
© B
eru
be
2009
Jan
uar
y 21
, 200
9 –
Tu
cso
n
Public Understanding of Emerging Scienceand Technology:
Eight Rules and Three Keysfrom the NanoExperience
David M. Berube
•Professor, Department of Communication
North Carolina State University
•CoordinatorNCSU Public Communication
of Science and Technology Project
•PI – NSF – NIRTIntuitive Nanotoxicology and Public Engagement& CoPI Dietram Scheufele,
UWisc.
•CEINT – Duke University w PI Mark Weisner
THE WHITE PAPERTHE WHITE PAPER
NSF NIRT #0809470 – Applied Nanoscience: NSF NIRT #0809470 – Applied Nanoscience: Public Perception of Risk 2007-2011 (Public Perception of Risk 2007-2011 (http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.htmlhtml).).
Workshop (August 28-29, 2008) Workshop (August 28-29, 2008) http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Deliverhttp://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Deliverables.htmlables.html. . Power Points.Power Points. Streams and Downloads.Streams and Downloads.
THE NIRTTHE NIRT
ResearchResearch Delphi questionnaire (Jan-Mar 2009).Delphi questionnaire (Jan-Mar 2009). Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) w USouth Public Service and Policy Research (IPSPR) w USouth
Carolina (mirror surveys).Carolina (mirror surveys). Data analysis w UWisc.Data analysis w UWisc. Civic Engagement exercises (assessment) w USC.Civic Engagement exercises (assessment) w USC. Focus Group. (nanofood) w UMinn.Focus Group. (nanofood) w UMinn.
SupplementSupplement History with NSF.History with NSF. Summer 2008 (144 pp.)Summer 2008 (144 pp.)
Train-the-Trainer (12/08; Scheufele, Wisc.)Train-the-Trainer (12/08; Scheufele, Wisc.)
PUBLIC SPHEREPUBLIC SPHERE
OUTREACH
PARTICIPATIONENGAGEMENT
CONSUMERS
Post WWII – conceptualizing the political Post WWII – conceptualizing the political public as consumers.public as consumers.
Eric Hobsbawn (2007) “Participation in the Eric Hobsbawn (2007) “Participation in the market replaces participation in politics; the market replaces participation in politics; the consumer takes the place of the citizen.”consumer takes the place of the citizen.”
CategoriesCategories Organized consumers (consumer movements).Organized consumers (consumer movements). Unorganized consumers (market research Unorganized consumers (market research
institutes).institutes). Actual consumers (derived from purchasing Actual consumers (derived from purchasing
patterns).patterns).
PUBLIC SPHEREAS CONSUMING-CITIZENS OR CITIZEN-CONSUMERS
RULE 1 - STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT EQUAL.
1. Public is generally disinterested in nanoscience (<70%).
2. Public is overwhelmingly disinterested in science and technology policy (<90%).
3. Engagement is not for everyone. Engagement exercises may not produce usable data. Sample size and methodology.
4. Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive.
SCIENCESCIENCE
PUBLIC SCIENCEPUBLIC SCIENCE
IN VIVO ANDIN VIVO ANDEPIDEMIOLOGICALEPIDEMIOLOGICAL
ININVITROVITRO
“real”SCIENCE
1.1. Infinite benefit – Infinite benefit –
2.2. Unfettered research –Unfettered research –
3.3. Accountability – peer-review, open debate.Accountability – peer-review, open debate.
4.4. Authoritativeness – politicians makes Authoritativeness – politicians makes decisions by recourse to the facts;decisions by recourse to the facts;
1.1. Speculation (mesothelioma).Speculation (mesothelioma).
2.2. Scientific self-interest (toxicology).Scientific self-interest (toxicology).
5.5. Endless frontier - Endless frontier -
MYTHS OF PUBLIC SCIENCE(SAREWITZ Frontiers of Illusion ’97)
RULE 2 - STOP TEACHING SCIENCE
1. Deficit theory of science literacy. Self-selected exclusion. Educational reform.
2. Heuristics and biases (the 3-4 As).a. Affect.b. Anchoring or adjustment.c. Availability.
3. Risk has a negative valence. Boomerang effects. Discussing risk increases its negative valence regardless of the subject.
PRODUCTS (2008)PRODUCTS (2008)
HybridMaterials
Coatings
PersonalCare Products
AlternativeEnergy
ConsumerProducts –
Sporting & Textiles
Food additives & packaging
Medicine& Pharmaceuticals
Computers
AppliedAppliednanoscience
PRODUCT QUADRADPRODUCT QUADRAD
Low-hanging fruit Low-hanging fruit is notis not ImaginativeImaginative TransformativeTransformative InspirationalInspirational Nor visionary.Nor visionary.
Profitable and Profitable and quickly so.quickly so.
POTABLEWATER
ALTERNATIVEENERGY
HEALTH ANDMEDICINE
FOOD
ETF
Gartner Hype CycleGartner Hype CycleITIT
RULE 3 – PRODUCTS/APPLICATIONS ARE NOT ALIKE
1. Low-hanging to especially-tasty fruit (a product with coattails).
2. Anchoring theory - the common human tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.
3. Assist entrants and rehabilitate others.
0
+
-
PERCEPTIONPERCEPTION
Amplificationand attenuation
Event
Perception of public perception
Public perception
Group leaders
RULE 4 – ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES
1. Audiences process information through their own perceptual filters, i.e., audiences use religious beliefs, moral schema, etc.
2. Perceptions are just that – the role of opinion – attitude – perception – behavior. Linking perception to behavior is not causal.
3. Determine your audience (the 7-10 percent solution).
TV and Internet News Consumption
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
18-24 25-29 30-34 35-49 50-64 65+
Age Range
% c
on
su
mp
tion
fro
m e
ach
med
ium
TV 1998
TV 2008
WWW 1998
WWW 2008
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, August 2008
RULE 5 - USE DIGITAL MEDIA
1. Data indicates demographics favor net-newsers in the USA (Pew data).
2. Design web resources as digital media NOT as text.
3. Net resources amplify risk messages though they could also attenuate them.
4. Staying on course with the evolving media: Social networking services (SNS), Twitter (micro-blogging), sliver TV, Second Life….
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Loss ofprivacy
Lead to armsrace
Loss of jobs Self-replicating
robots
May be usedby terrorists
New healthproblems
Morepollution
Res
pond
ents
(%)
UnawareAware
PERCEIVED RISKS OF NANO:AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS
HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS?
Hart 2007
01020
30405060
708090
Help cleanup
environment
Bettertreatment ofdiseases
Betternational
security anddefense
Improvehumanabilities
Solve energyproblems
Revolutionizecomputerindustry
Lead toeconomic
boom
Resp
onde
nts (
%)
UnawareAware
PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF NANO:AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS
HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS?
Hart 2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Somewhat certainbenefits exceed risks
Believe science isconfident benefits exceed
risks
Pre
Post
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FORUMSRESULTS OF DELIBERATION ON CERTAINTY???
(n = 300/6 locations)
10th Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, Malmo, Sweden , June 2008 and http://cns.asu.edu/files/ and NCTFSummaryReportFinalFormat08.pdf .
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Risks exceedbenefits
Risks equalbenefits
Benefitsexceed risks
No opinion
Pre
Post
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FORUMSRESULT OF DELIBERATIONS ON CONCERN
NBIC (Human Enhancement)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Should avoid Should avoid (strongly)
Pre
Post
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FORUMSRESULT OF DELIBERATIONS
INTERFERING WITH “NATURAL” HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
RULE 6 – IT’S NOT ABOUT AWARENESS
1.1. Public awareness tends to increase fear of Public awareness tends to increase fear of risks and increase appreciation of benefits. risks and increase appreciation of benefits. Endurance issues – longitudinal studies.Endurance issues – longitudinal studies.
2.2. This is a marketing issue and narratology is This is a marketing issue and narratology is the game (link to affect heuristic); coherent the game (link to affect heuristic); coherent stories.stories.
3.3. Selecting the voice and the spokespersons.Selecting the voice and the spokespersons.
LESSONS from Hart and NTFLESSONS from Hart and NTF
Public risk education. Risk has a Public risk education. Risk has a negative valence (check new report). negative valence (check new report).
Awareness may affect perception but…Awareness may affect perception but… Does awareness “significantly” affect Does awareness “significantly” affect
perceptions?perceptions? Does it have “real” or “long-term” effects? Does it have “real” or “long-term” effects? Is it worth the price?Is it worth the price?
NISE AUDIENCES
1. What worries us about the public?a. Public rejects spending? Legislators
suspect public objects to spending?
b. Public will boycott products? c. Public will protest industry?
2. Who should worry us, then?a. Media reports.b. NGO/CAG reports.
RULE 7. ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES.
MEDIA/NGOsMEDIA/NGOs“Consequences count”“Consequences count”
African food aid – African food aid – World Food program; World Food program; 100,000 metric tons; 100,000 metric tons; recipient and transit recipient and transit countries; pre-countries; pre-milling; raises costs, milling; raises costs, hastens storage hastens storage losses, and reduces losses, and reduces the amount of food the amount of food available for available for emergency reliefemergency relief. .
Australian Australian melanoma – melanoma – (Sydney Morning (Sydney Morning Herald) NSW Herald) NSW Cancer Council; Cancer Council; since 1990; risks of since 1990; risks of sun exposure are sun exposure are well documented; well documented; 1600 die each year; 1600 die each year; lives are at risk lives are at risk (JNR FOE-Australia).(JNR FOE-Australia).
1.1. Fear marketing/fear mongering. Fear marketing/fear mongering. a.a. Direct relationship between fear and Direct relationship between fear and
viewership/readership/membership…viewership/readership/membership…
b.b. Rhetorical devicesRhetorical devices1.1. Risk profile shifts.Risk profile shifts.
2.2. Prolepsis and counterfactuals.Prolepsis and counterfactuals.
2.2. Kaplan’s complaint – using Kaplan’s complaint – using nanoscience as a scapegoat for nanoscience as a scapegoat for bigger issues.bigger issues.
RULE 8. ENGAGE THE MEDIA AND NGOs
1. It’s time to re-examine public engagement from in terms of productivity.
2. It’s not a public issue, rather it is a media/NGO issue. It’s all about amplification.
3. It’s a digital world; reading has changed; information flow has shifted.
4. NGOs/CAGs – refutation is important; debunking (starvation in Africa and melanoma in Australia) – misinformation must be countered.
KEY 1 – BUILD STRATEGIES
(Guard dogs & guinea pigs)
KEY 2 - LET GO OF MISCONCEPTIONSRISK ANALYSIS IN HIGH UNCERTAINTY
“We need new approaches to risk studies!”
1. Stop worrying about popular culture.
2. Science education is fine. Gladwell criticisms.
3. Public engagement is expensive and mildly productive. Decide what your goals are.
4. All scientists need to work together (natural and social). Nagging is counterproductive. Need a new era of constructive engagement.
1. Stop using intuition when designing a communication campaigns. Failures are expensive. (esp., trust and anchoring) AND risk fatigue is real.
2. Use data; NO place for pop-communication and PR.
3. Don’t over-extend your expertise. Risk on a dime is not wise. Use communication professionals.
KEY 3 – WHAT TO DO WHEN
COMMUNICATING TO THE PUBLIC
POTABLEWATER
ALTERNATIVEENERGY
MEDICINE
FOOD
ETF
med(Ev1 + Ev2 + … Evn) med(P1 + P2 + … Pn) Risk ← ______________________________________ I T
ALGORITHM & MODELALGORITHM & MODEL Risk communication algorithm.Risk communication algorithm.
Risk communication model.Risk communication model.
Ev = event, P = probability, I = information, and T = trust.
ILS
I NA
200
9 -
© B
eru
be
2009
Ja
nu
ary
21. 2
009
– T
ucs
on
RISK COMMUNICATION AND PUBLICS
This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 06-595, #0809470Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement.