Environmental Analysis Health and Toxicology

The Korean Society of Environmental Health and Toxicology (환경독성보건학회)
권호 표지

Public and Experts Perception about Nanotechnology Hazards in Korea

대한민국에서의 나노물질 위해성에 관한 일반인/전문가 인식 설문조사

  • Lee, Jeong-Jin (School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Young-Hun (Department of Chemical Engineering, Kwangwon University) ;
  • Bae, Eun-Joo (School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Su-Seung (School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kwak, Byoung-Kyu (School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University) ;
  • Choi, Kyung-Hee (Chemicals Assessment Department, National Institute of Environmental Research, Environmental Research Complex) ;
  • Yi, Jong-Heop (School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Seoul National University)
  • 이정진 (서울대학교 화학생물공학부) ;
  • 김영훈 (광운대학교 화학공학과) ;
  • 배은주 (서울대학교 화학생물공학부) ;
  • 이수승 (서울대학교 화학생물공학부) ;
  • 곽병규 (서울대학교 화학생물공학부) ;
  • 최경희 (국립환경연구원 화학물질평가부) ;
  • 이종협 (서울대학교 화학생물공학부)
  • Published : 2008.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Public perceptions of nanotechnology and its potential risk can be an important measure for the sustainable advances of the technology. We conducted a survey for public (N =599) and experts (N = 165). They answered the same questions and results were analyzed. 74% of the public have not heard about the potential risk of nanotechnology and 77% expected that nanotechnology/materials are not harmful to the human and nature. 74% of experts realized the potential hazards by nanomaterials. The results represented that large perception gab between public and experts has existed in Korea. Interestingly, Korean public thought that nanotechnology is more profitable and less risky than that of American. We suggest that 'now is the best time to give appropriate information on the potential risk of nanotechnology to Korean public without preconception or exaggeration.'

Keywords

References

  1. AIST. Perception of nanotechnology among general public in Japan, Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly 2006; 4: article #6
  2. Cobb MD and Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust, J Nanopart Res 2004; 6: 395-405 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4
  3. Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J and Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology?, Nat Nanotechnol 2006; 1: 153-155 https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2006.155
  4. Cyranoski D. Verdict: Hwang's human stem cells were all fakes, Nature 2006; 439: 122-123 https://doi.org/10.1038/439122b
  5. Gaskell G, Bauer MW, Durant J and Allum NC. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U.S., Science 1999; 285: 384-387 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.285.5426.384
  6. Hassan MHA. Small things and big changes in the developing world, Science 2005; 309: 65-66 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111138
  7. Kim MS, Choi K, Kim Y and Yi J. Risk assessment for health and environmental hazards of nanomaterials, Clean Technol 2007; 13: 159-170
  8. KISTI. 한국, 일본, 미국, 영국의 나노기술 인식도 설문조사결과 비교, Nano Weakly 2006; 182: 2-4
  9. Oberdorster E. Manufactured nanomaterials (Fullerenes, $C_{60}$) induce oxidative stress in the brain of Juvenile Largemouth Bass, Environ Health Persp 2004; 112: 1058-1062 https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7021
  10. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S and Wiek A. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards, Risk Analysis 2007; 27: 59-69 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x