Cross National Study of Upstream Public Cross National Study of Upstream Public Deliberation on Emerging Health & Energy Deliberation on Emerging Health & Energy Nanotechnologies Nanotechnologies Staci Chirchick, Sociology Santa Barbara City College Graduate Mentors: Dr. Karl Bryant & Joe Conti Faculty Advisor: Prof. Barbara Herr Harthorn Funded By: The National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement No. SES 0531184
Public Perception and Participation Public Perception and Participation In Nanotechnology In Nanotechnology •2006 estimated $9 billion in global investment in nanotechnology R&D •2008 projected $1.5 billion in US Federal Allocation for nanotechnology R&D R & D Commercialization Consumers Upstream Downstream
How Do We Involve the Public? How Do We Involve the Public? Social Science Involvement Social Science Involvement � Social scientists act as mediators between public and scientists � Upstream involvement of social scientists is unprecedented in this field � Exploratory research given upstream involvement � Collaboration of two cultures US & UK
Nanotechnology and Health Deliberation Pilot Energy Health United States Jan. 2007 Feb. 2007 Feb. 2007 Jan. 2007 Feb. 2007 Feb. 2007 UCSB Oct. 2006 Feb. 2007 Feb. 2007 Oct. 2006 Feb. 2007 Feb. 2007 United Kingdom Cardiff Protocol World Café •Arrivals/Consent Forms •Nano Basics •Introductions •Nano Medicine •Health Discussion •Slide Presentations w/ Short Q&A’s after each •Human Enhancement •Questions/Agenda Setting •Lunch and Reading Articles • World Café •Dialogue •Debrief and Evaluations •Total Time: 4 ½ Hours
World Café é World Caf Small Group Table Discussions Small Group Table Discussions Nano Basics Basics Nano Medicine Medicine Nano Nano Ex: What is Nanotechnology? Ex: Targeted Drug Delivery Ex: What is Nanotechnology? Ex: Targeted Drug Delivery Human Enhancement Human Enhancement Ex: A Blind Person Can Regain Sight Ex: A Blind Person Can Regain Sight
Santa Barbara Health Workshop Santa Barbara Health Workshop World Café é World Caf # of Men & Women Order of Rotation 1. Nano Nano Basics Basics 1. Three Men Three Men 2. Nano Nano Medicine Medicine 2. Group 1 3. Human Enhancement One Woman 3. Human Enhancement One Woman 1. Nano 1. Nano Medicine Medicine One Man One Man 2. Human Enhancement 2. Human Enhancement Group 2 3. Nano Nano Basics Basics Three Women 3. Three Women 1. Human Enhancement 1. Human Enhancement 2. Nano 2. Nano Basics Basics Four Men Four Men Group 3 3. Nano Nano Medicine Medicine 3. One Woman One Woman
SB Health Sample SB Health Sample Demographics Demographics (n=14) (n=14) Education cation High School Some College Associate Bachelor Grad or Prof 7% 21% 36% 29% 7% Age Range Age Rang 18-32 33-54 55 or older 29% 50% 21%
SB Health Sample SB Health Sample Demographics (cont.) Demographics (cont.) (n=14) (n=14) Ethn hnic icity ity White Latino Asian Af-American Other 0% 14% 14% 51% 21% Gender nder Male Female 43% 57%
Qualitative vs. Quantitative Qualitative vs. Quantitative � Qualitative Qualitative ≠ ≠ unsystematic unsystematic � � Verbatim transcripts of all discussion Verbatim transcripts of all discussion � � Search for patterns across participants Search for patterns across participants � (individual responses) (individual responses) � Study group/gender dynamics Study group/gender dynamics �
Why Look at Gender? Why Look at Gender? Male Female # of M vs. W Word Count Word Count Three Men Three Men Group 1 One Woman One Woman 3,036 1,177 3,036 1,177 (x=1,012) (x=1,012) One Man One Man Group 2 Three Women Three Women 1,484 3,806 1,484 3,806 (x=1,268) (x=1,268) Four Men 3,647 Four Men 3,647 Group 3 One Woman One Woman (x=911) 1,339 (x=911) 1,339
Male & Female Positive Risk Perception Male & Female Positive Risk Perception Male Positive Female Positive Comparison “…I think that for us I think that for us “…Personally, I lost Personally, I lost Men speak more “… “… Men speak more as a race, you know a brother to cancer about implications as a race, you know a brother to cancer about implications I would never give 10 years ago, and of technology on a I would never give 10 years ago, and of technology on a up on trying to, you had some of the grand scale, up on trying to, you had some of the grand scale, know, get rid of technology today, whereas women know, get rid of technology today, whereas women some of the things been available then, relate it to personal some of the things been available then, relate it to personal that keep repeating I think he would still experience. that keep repeating I think he would still experience. themselves in our be alive…” …” themselves in our be alive reproduction” ” reproduction This confirms This confirms findings of prior findings of prior research. research.
Male & Female Negative Risk Perception Male & Female Negative Risk Perception Male Negative Female Negative Comparison “I could just see a I could just see a “I guess it's like one I guess it's like one Males and females “ “ Males and females lot of potential of the big problems shared some lot of potential of the big problems shared some problems with the of so- -called called negative risk problems with the of so negative risk way society progress… … Like you Like you perception, way society progress perception, functions with the could say all the especially about functions with the could say all the especially about advancement of this technological unknown impacts advancement of this technological unknown impacts technology.” ” advances we've on nanotech and technology. advances we've on nanotech and made have really how it may alter made have really how it may alter severely hurt the social relations. severely hurt the social relations. environment…” …” environment
Male & Female Ambivalence Male & Female Ambivalence Male Ambivalence Female Ambivalence Comparison “Sounds like a good Sounds like a good “…so one brother so one brother Shared themes “ “… Shared themes and bad monster, like and bad monster, like died of cancer and died of cancer and between males and between males and one that can be so one that can be so my other brother's my other brother's females females helpful to us, you helpful to us, you 80% blind… …I I 80% blind Suggestive gender Suggestive gender know maybe know maybe thought wow that thought wow that differences in how differences in how knocking out some knocking out some would be so cool, would be so cool, those themes are those themes are really gnarly diseases really gnarly diseases you know that, I you know that, I expressed, the expressed, the and things, and then and things, and then mean that would be mean that would be same as in positive same as in positive on the other hand the on the other hand the neat, but some neat, but some risk perception. potential, lets say risk perception. potential, lets say people might look at people might look at what can happen if it what can happen if it it like you know, well it like you know, well got into the wrong got into the wrong that's just the way it that's just the way it hands, or if people hands, or if people is and you know he is and you know he won't abuse it, won't abuse it, should just be left should just be left sounds very sounds very alone kind of thing.” ” alone kind of thing. dangerous too…” …” dangerous too
Conclusions Conclusions If Only There Was More Time… … If Only There Was More Time � Gender and sequencing effect the way people discuss Gender and sequencing effect the way people discuss � nanotechnology nanotechnology � Compare smaller group dynamic with large group Compare smaller group dynamic with large group � dynamic dynamic � Compare Health Workshop to Energy Workshop Compare Health Workshop to Energy Workshop � � Compare cross Compare cross- -culturally culturally � � Research differences in: Research differences in: � � Ethnicity Ethnicity � � Age Age � � Education Education � � Socioeconomic Status Socioeconomic Status �
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Dr. Evelyn Hu Hu, Scientific Director of , Scientific Director of CNSI CNSI Dr. Evelyn Prof. Barbara Herr Harthorn Prof. Barbara Herr Harthorn, Director of CNS , Director of CNS Dr. Fiona Goodchild Goodchild, CNSI Education Director , CNSI Education Director Dr. Fiona Liu- -Yen Kramer, CNSI Education Co Yen Kramer, CNSI Education Co- -Director Director Liu Samantha Freeman, INSET Coordinator Samantha Freeman, INSET Coordinator Emily Kang, CNS Education Coordinator Emily Kang, CNS Education Coordinator Dr. Nick Arnold, INSET Community College Liaison Dr. Nick Arnold, INSET Community College Liaison Luke Bawazer Bawazer, INSET , INSET Supermentor Supermentor Luke Dr. Karl Bryant, Mentor Joe Conti, Mentor Dr. Karl Bryant, Mentor Joe Conti, Mentor
Recommend
More recommend
