NSECCNS ASU Site Visit

1
RTTA 2 PUBLIC OPINION AND VALUES
Elizabeth A. Corley (ASU) Dietram A. Scheufele
(UW-Madison) Co-Leaders, RTTA 2
2
RTTA 2 AN OVERVIEW
Media Influences on Public Opinion
Scientist vs. Public Opinion
Images of Scientists in Media Learning from Mass
Media
3
CNS / RTTA 2 DATA COLLECTIONS
4
YEAR 1 NATIONAL SURVEY

• Methodological Details
• CATI Survey
• RDD Sample
• Fieldwork April-July 2006, multiple call-backs
  to minimize systematic nonresponse biases
• N 1,200
• Survey designed to allow comparisons with
• 2004 U.S. nano survey
• 2006 Eurobarometer (more than 30 countries)
• 2006 Badger Poll (Wisconsin)
• 2008 post-tests for CNS-ASU citizen forums

5
YEAR 1 SURVEY CONTENT

• Communication and information environment
• Strategies for processing scientific information
• Perceptions of
• Scientists
• Policy makers
• Need for regulation
• etc.
• Attitudes and Values
• Nano and science literacy
• Perceptions of nanotechnology
• Risks/benefits
• Future development
• etc.

6
A FEW INITIAL COMPARISONS WITH 2004
Comparison data from 2004 NIRT Nanotechnology
and its publics (Award SES-0403783)

• About 26 percent (2004 25 percent) of all
  respondents reported never having heard of the
  issue, even if it was explained to them by the
  interviewer
• Only about 14 percent (2004 16 percent) of all
  respondents felt at least somewhat informed
  about nanotechnology.

7
SUPPORT NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED
Percentage of people who overall support (or
oppose) the use of nanotechnology
8
SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL FUNDING SIMILAR STORY
Percentage of people who overall support (or
oppose) federal funding for nanotechnology
9
PERCEIVED BENEFITSAWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS
10
PERCEIVED RISKSAWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS
11
A VERY PRELIMINARY SUMMARY

• Slightly more positive outlook toward nano
  science and nano funding overall
• But, concerns about nano picking up among the
  aware (in 2004 only differences for benefit
  perceptions)
• Important
• Only initial descriptives, paralleling some of
  the 2004 findings
• More in-depth analyses to follow

12
SCIENTIST SURVEY

• Sampling Design
• Search terms for Web of Science (article titles
  only) nanotech OR  nanotechnology OR
  nanotechnologies OR nanobiotechnology OR
  nanoparticle OR nanoparticles OR nanoscale OR
  nanoscience OR nanomedicine
• Science Citation Index Expanded (1955-present)
• Yields 25,148 articles and 42,680 authors
  (8/20/06)
• Sample Top 1,200 scientists (based on times
  cited)

13
SCIENTIST SURVEY

• Fieldwork Details
• Mail survey
• Target response rate of 35-40 percent
• (420-480 completed questionnaires)
• Fieldwork Timeline
• December 2006 February 2007Construct and
  Finalize Questionnaire
• March 2007 Administer survey
• May 2007 Final Dataset Available for Analysis

14
SYNERGIES AND OUTLOOK

• 2004 NSF NIRT (Dietram Scheufele Bruce
  Lewenstein)
• 2004 SC Focus Groups (Susanna Priest)
• 2006 Eurobarometer (Martin Bauer)
• Cornell Museum Project (Carl Batt)
• UCSB Web Content Analyses (Bruce Bimber)
• CNS-ASU RTTA 4 Scientist Interview Data (Kevin
  Corley, Ed Hackett Elizabeth Corley)

15
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

• Elizabeth A. Corley
• (elizabeth.corley_at_asu.edu)
• Dietram A. Scheufele
• (scheufele_at_wisc.edu)