X-Message-Number: 30491
From: Mark Plus <>
Subject: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:40:41 -0800

http://www.physorg.com/news122309388.html
 
Published: 14:49 EST, February 15, 2008 

Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology


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 here today 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. 


The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2007 by the UW-Madison Survey Center 
and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. 

Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison 
_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
http://biggestloser.msn.com/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30491