IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i3p317-327..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nanoscientists and political involvement: Which characteristics make scientists more likely to support engagement in political debates?

Author

Listed:
  • Youngjae Kim
  • Elizabeth A. Corley
  • Dietram A. Scheufele

Abstract

The scientific community is increasingly called upon to provide scientific advice to policy-makers (de Kerckhove, D. T., Rennie, M. D., and Cormier, R., 2015, EMBO Reports, 6, 263–6). However, scientists’ perceptions about political involvement vary based on their individual beliefs, values, and backgrounds. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptual factors that are associated with US nanoscientists’ perceptions about political involvement. To examine this, we analyze data from a 2011 mail survey of leading US nanoscientists. Our results indicate that the scientists are generally supportive of involvement in political debates. Yet, we find some differences across scientists with respect to their perceptions about political involvement. For example, Caucasian respondents are more supportive of scientists’ political involvement than their peers. Also, scientists with higher risk perceptions of nanotechnology are more likely to support political involvement. In addition, scientists who pay more attention to the wishes of the public are more likely to support scientists’ involvement in political debates. Lastly, scientists’ degree of religious faith is inversely associated with the likelihood of agreeing with their political involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Youngjae Kim & Elizabeth A. Corley & Dietram A. Scheufele, 2017. "Nanoscientists and political involvement: Which characteristics make scientists more likely to support engagement in political debates?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 317-327.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:3:p:317-327.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw065
    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.

    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:44:y:2017:i:3:p:317-327.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.