IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v33y2011i1p128-136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia

Author

Listed:
  • Leong, Ching Ching
  • Jarvis, Darryl
  • Howlett, Michael
  • Migone, Andrea

Abstract

Past studies of the success of regulation and other forms of state and private sector activity in areas of new technologies have argued these are dependent on a number of factors, one of which is the reaction of public opinion to the innovation concerned. Most existing theories of public acceptance of controversial science-based products are based largely on European and North American case studies and are divided between those which focus on public and consumer knowledge of the science involved – the ‘deficit model’ - and those which stress either the need for trust in regulatory and private sector actors involved in new product development and regulation, or the significance of individual cultural norms on attitude formation. This paper examines two cases of the introduction of controversial science in Asia - wastewater recycling in Singapore and nanotechnology regulation in China in order to assess the influence of these factors in each case. Based on this comparative research, it is argued that models of public acceptance of controversial science-based products must also take into account the state’s ability to define the range of public debate as a key overall parameter of public attitude formation.

Suggested Citation

  • Leong, Ching Ching & Jarvis, Darryl & Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea, 2011. "Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 128-136.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:33:y:2011:i:1:p:128-136
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X1100008X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, J. Lynne & Qin, Wei, 2005. "Testing Public Policy Concepts to Inform Consumers about Genetically Engineered Foods," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1-5.
    2. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    3. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    4. Eric Lindquist & Katrina N. Mosher‐Howe & Xinsheng Liu, 2010. "Nanotechnology . . . What Is It Good For? (Absolutely Everything): A Problem Definition Approach," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(3), pages 255-271, May.
    5. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    6. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    7. Kana Talukder & Jennifer Kuzma, 2008. "Evaluating technology oversight through multiple frameworks: A case study of genetically engineered cotton in India," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 121-138, March.
    8. Susanna Hornig Priest & Heinz Bonfadelli & Maria Rusanen, 2003. "The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 751-766, August.
    9. Paarlberg, Robert L., 2000. "Governing the GM crop revolution: policy choices for developing countries," 2020 vision discussion papers 33, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. J. Barnett & H. Cooper & V. Senior, 2007. "Belief in Public Efficacy, Trust, and Attitudes Toward Modern Genetic Science," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 921-933, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    3. Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea Riccardo, 2010. "The Canadian biotechnology regulatory regime: The role of participation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 280-287.
    4. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    5. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    6. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    7. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    8. Katherine A. McComas & John C. Besley & Zheng Yang, 2008. "Risky Business: Perceived Behavior of Local Scientists and Community Support for Their Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1539-1552, December.
    9. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    10. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F., 2007. "Genetically modified food labeling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 49-66, February.
    11. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    12. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    13. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    14. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    15. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    16. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    17. Oliver Todt & José Luis Luján, 2014. "Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Go Together?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(12), pages 2163-2173, December.
    18. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    19. Monaghan, Conal & Bizumic, Boris & Van Rooy, Dirk, 2020. "An analysis of public attitudes in Australia towards applications of biotechnology to humans: Kinds, causes, and effects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    20. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:33:y:2011:i:1:p:128-136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.