Capon Adam, Gillespie James, Rolfe Margaret, Smith Wayne
Menzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Environmental Health Branch, Health Protection NSW, 73 Miller St, North Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2015 Apr 26;15:424. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1795-1.
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.
尽管政策制定者和监管者所提议决策的结果存在很大不确定性，但他们仍需不断做出决策。了解利益相关者的观点是应对这种不确定性的重要组成部分，这有助于洞察可能的社会反应以及对不可预测风险的容忍度。在纳米技术领域，对于该技术可能给社会带来的实际风险和感知风险存在很大的不确定性。需要更好的证据来应对这一问题。
我们对澳大利亚公众进行了一项计算机辅助电话访谈（CATI）调查，并对学术、商业和政府部门中参与纳米技术的人员进行了一项平行调查。分析包括比例比较和逻辑回归技术。我们探讨了对纳米技术在健康方面以及一系列产品中的风险认知。我们研究了对四个信任主体的看法。
公众对风险的认知明显高于其他利益相关者所表达的认知。与学者或政府官员相比，公众对某些信任主体的信任度较低，对科学家的信任度最高。公众较高的信任水平通常与较低的风险认知相关。无论利益相关者如何，食品和化妆品/防晒霜中的纳米技术都被认为是风险较高的应用，而对纳米技术的熟悉程度与较低的风险认知相关。
政策制定者应考虑公众与有影响力的利益相关者在风险和信任认知方面的差异，更加重视在这些更受关注的领域进行风险沟通以及风险评估的不确定性。科学家作为最受信任的群体，非常适合向公众传达纳米技术的风险。
