IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v43y2016i2p196-206..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudinal gaps: How experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science

Author

Listed:
  • Leona Yi-Fan Su
  • Michael A. Cacciatore
  • Dominique Brossard
  • Elizabeth A. Corley
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
  • Michael A. Xenos

Abstract

Input from scientific experts and lay audiences plays an important role in the realization of scientific advances and scientific policymaking. This study examines factors influencing expert and public attitudes toward the regulation of academic and commercial nanotechnology. Compared to scientific experts, lay publics are more likely to support the regulation of academic nanotechnology, with value predispositions playing a critical role in impacting such opinions. Among lay audiences, liberals and respondents reporting higher levels of religiosity were more likely to support regulation of both academic and commercial nanotechnology research, while those who paid greater attention to the media were more supportive of regulations for commercial research. Across the two groups, perceptions of risks relative to benefits consistently predicted attitudes toward regulation. Importantly, scientists rely less upon their value predispositions when forming regulatory attitudes, instead basing such attitudes on perceptions of regulatory impacts on scientific progress. The regulatory implications of these findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Leona Yi-Fan Su & Michael A. Cacciatore & Dominique Brossard & Elizabeth A. Corley & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2016. "Attitudinal gaps: How experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 196-206.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:43:y:2016:i:2:p:196-206.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scv031
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Benner, Mats & Sandstrom, Ulf, 2000. "Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 291-301, February.
    2. Elizabeth A. Corley & Youngjae Kim & Dietram A. Scheufele, 2013. "The Current Status and Future Direction of Nanotechnology Regulations: A View from Nano-scientists," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(5), pages 488-511, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Massaro, Sebastiano & Lorenzoni, Gianni, 2021. "Nanomedicine: a socio-technical system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    2. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.

    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. Beesley, Lisa G. A., 2003. "Science policy in changing times: are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1519-1531, September.
    2. Munari, Federico & Sobrero, Maurizio & Toschi, Laura, 2018. "The university as a venture capitalist? Gap funding instruments for technology transfer," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 70-84.
    3. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Hanna Hottenrott & Cornelia Lawson, 2014. "Research grants, sources of ideas and the effects on academic research," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 109-133, March.
    5. Isidore Komla Zotoo & Guifeng Liu & Zhangping Lu & Frank Kofi Essien & Wencheng Su, 2023. "The Impact of Key Stakeholders and the Computer Skills of Librarians on Research Data Management Support Services (Id so-21-1893.r2)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    6. Chih-Hung Yuan & Yenchun Jim Wu & Kune-muh Tsai, 2019. "Supply Chain Innovation in Scientific Research Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, January.
    7. Hottenrott, Hanna & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2010. "Industry funding of university research and scientific productivity," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-105, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    9. Liao, Chien Hsiang, 2021. "The Matthew effect and the halo effect in research funding," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    10. repec:dau:papers:123456789/5019 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Andereggen, Stefan & Vischer, Moritz & Boutellier, Roman, 2012. "Honest but broke: The dilemma of universities acting as honest brokers," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 118-126.
    12. Øivind Strand & Inga Ivanova & Loet Leydesdorff, 2017. "Decomposing the Triple-Helix synergy into the regional innovation systems of Norway: firm data and patent networks," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 963-988, May.
    13. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    14. Ryan, Paul & Geoghegan, Will & Hilliard, Rachel, 2018. "The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 15-27.
    15. Migheli, Matteo & Zotti, Roberto, 2020. "The strange case of the Matthew effect and beauty contests: Research evaluation and specialisation in Italian universities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    16. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    17. Jiang Wu & Miao Jin & Xiu-Hao Ding, 2015. "Diversity of individual research disciplines in scientific funding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 669-686, May.
    18. Strand, Øivind & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "Where is synergy indicated in the Norwegian innovation system? Triple-Helix relations among technology, organization, and geography," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 471-484.
    19. Çetin Önder & Mehmet Sevkli & Taner Altinok & Cengiz Tavukçuoǧlu, 2008. "Institutional change and scientific research: A preliminary bibliometric analysis of institutional influences on Turkey’s recent social science publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(3), pages 543-560, September.
    20. Juha-Pekka Lauronen, 2022. "The epistemic, production, and accountability prospects of social impact: An analysis of strategic research proposals," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 214-225.
    21. Harvey Goldstein, 2010. "The ‘entrepreneurial turn’ and regional economic development mission of universities," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 44(1), pages 83-109, February.

    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:oup:scippl:v:43:y:2016:i:2:p:196-206.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.