community attitudes towards emerging technology web viewcommunity attitudes towards emerging...

COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TOWARDS EMERGING TECHNOLOGY ISSUES - NANOTECHNOLOGY

PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, INNOVATION, SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TERTIARY

EDUCATIONISRI PROJECT 12-025766-01

DATE: DECEMBER 2012

ADDRESS:BUILDING 1, LEVEL 2,

658 CHURCH ST,RICHMOND VIC 3121

AcknowledgementsThe Ipsos Social Research Institute would like to thank the Department for their help and assistance in the development of the project. We would also like to thank the members of the public and the stakeholders who took part in this study without whose input, the research would not have not been possible.

ContentsAcknowledgements........................................................................................2

Section 1 Executive summary.........................................................................5Background ........................................................................................................5Methodology ........................................................................................................6Key findings ........................................................................................................6Attitudes toward science and technology..................................................................8Attitudes to the world around us................................................................................8Awareness of nanotechnology and specific nanotechnology applications.................8Attitudes towards nanotechnology and specific nanotechnology applications...........9Attitudes relating to nanotechnology issues..............................................................9Concerns about nanotechnology...............................................................................9Attitudes towards specific applications of nanotechnology........................................9Attitudes towards regulatory bodies and key players..............................................10Seeking information about new technologies..........................................................10Implications ......................................................................................................11

Section 2 Research context..........................................................................112.1 Background to project.....................................................................................112.2 Research objectives........................................................................................12

Section 3 Research design............................................................................13Overview of study....................................................................................................13Questionnaire design phase – consultations and cognitive testing..........................13Quantitative data collection.....................................................................................13Weighting ......................................................................................................14Reporting of statistical testing.................................................................................15Conduct of the segmentation...................................................................................15

Section 4 Respondent profile........................................................................16

Section 5 Segmentation of attitudes.............................................................175.1 Segmentation overview..................................................................................175.2 Segmentation profiles.....................................................................................19

Section 6 ‘Predictors’ of attitudes.................................................................31

Section 7 Attitudes towards science & technology.........................................32Attitudes towards how science and technology is changing society........................32Attitudes towards science and technology...............................................................33

Section 8 Attitudes to the world around us...................................................37

Section 9 Awareness of nanotechnology & specific nanotechnology applications.............................................................................................39

9.1 Awareness of nanotechnology........................................................................409.2 Understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology.........................................429.3 Awareness of specific nanotechnology applications........................................49

Section 10 Attitudes towards nanotechnology and specific nanotechnology applications .............................................................................................53

10.1 General attitudes towards nanotechnology....................................................5310.2 Attitudes relating to nanotechnology issues...................................................6110.3 Examination of concerns about nanotechnology.............................................65

10.4 Attitudes towards specific applications of nanotechnology.............................69

Section 11 Attitudes towards regulatory bodies and key players..............7411.1 Perceptions of regulatory bodies.....................................................................7411.2 Trust in key groups.........................................................................................7611.3 Perceptions of expertise of key groups...........................................................7911.4 Importance of allocating budget resources to nanotechnology development and regulation ......................................................................................................81

Section 12 Seeking information about new technologies..........................83Potential sources of information..............................................................................85

Section 13 Implications of the research...................................................88

Appendices .............................................................................................89Demographics ......................................................................................................89Questionnaires ......................................................................................................95

Community attitudes towards emerging technology issues - Nanotechnology

Section 1 Executive summaryBackgroundThe Department and NETS PACE

The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) is a federal government department responsible for managing the National Enabling Technology Strategy (NETS). The NETS plays a key role in Public Awareness and Community Engagement (PACE) with relation to enabling technologies such as nanotechnology in Australia.

What is nanotechnology?

Nanotechnology is the ability to manipulate matter at a molecular scale. Actual and potential applications range from energy production to medicine, information communication, agriculture and environmental preservation. For Australia, there are clearly great economic and social benefits to be had from the judicious use of nanotechnology. However, risks associated with the applications of nanotechnology remain largely untested, and potentially detrimental impacts on human health and the environment remain uncertain.

The need for research

Community attitudes are crucial to the development of the Australian nanotechnology sector. If Australians are not in favour of a particular technological application, research and development in this area will be constrained. In addition, public attitudes help shape both industry uptake of emerging technologies and the underlying regulatory framework for them.

It is clear then that if community attitudes are assumed, not measured, a host of potential benefits in fields ranging from medicine to textiles are likely to be missed, resulting in a lost opportunity for individuals, industry and the nation as a whole.

Over recent years, the Department has conducted a number of surveys canvassing community attitudes towards nanotechnology. These studies have helped gauge the state of Australian public awareness, identify knowledge gaps and track changes in awareness and attitudes over time. This study is the latest of these investigations. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to:

Explore current attitudes towards general science and technology;

Explore the public’s awareness and understanding of specific nanotechnology issues;

Examine public attitudes towards nanotechnology including specific applications and controllers of the technology; and

Explore differences in awareness, perceptions and attitudes according to key demographic variables such as age, gender, location, education, etc.)

5


MethodologyQuestionnaire design phase – consultations and cognitive testing

Stakeholder consultations were carried out to gather feedback from people involved in different aspects of nanotechnology including representatives from industry, government, peak bodies, scientists and social science practitioners to ensure that the terms used throughout the questionnaire were still relevant and that the survey covered any new and emerging issues.

Cognitive testing of the survey instrument was then undertaken with four members of the public to test the logic and understanding of the terms used throughout the survey. Feedback from both fed towards the development of the final survey instrument.

Quantitative data collection

Two sets of quantitative data were collected – via computer aided telephone interviews (CATI) and via an online survey (both n=1000 each). Both samples were independent and, with the exception of a series of ‘core’ questions asked of both, the surveys covered different topic areas.

The reason for utilising a mixed methodology approach was to ensure the study covered a sufficient breadth of topic areas within budget and without being overly burdensome for survey participants. The final telephone questionnaire averaged 19 minutes in duration while the online survey was 15 minutes in length.

A stratified sampling approach was applied to produce samples that were broadly representative of the population by age, gender, and geographic location. Post weighting was then applied to smooth the few remaining differences between the sample and the age and gender profile of the 16-75 year old Australian population.

All fieldwork was undertaken between 15 October and 7 November inclusive.

Key findingsSegmentation

In order to investigate attitudinal groupings with regard to emerging technologies, a segmentation was created. A cluster analysis of ratings to a series of statements produced four distinct attitudinal groups. Two of the segments (Segments 1 and 2) were less positive toward science and technology, while two segments were more positive. Each segment is profiled in more detail below.

Segment 1

Segment 1 was the least enthusiastic about the benefits science and technology. They had the highest agreement that ‘the pace of technological change is too fast to keep up with’ and were the most likely to agree that ‘science and technology creates more problems than it solves’, that ‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than the poor’, and that ‘we rely too much on science and not enough on faith’.

6


Compared to the other segments, Segment 1 had the lowest (though still relatively high) opinion of the potential implications of nanotechnology, but also had the lowest reported awareness of the term ‘nanotechnology’ with more than one in five (22%) of this segment saying the ‘have not heard of it’. This segment had the highest agreement that ‘people shouldn’t tamper with nature’, that ‘everything in the world is connected’, and ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’.

Those in Segment 1 were more likely to be female, aged 51-75 and to speak languages other than English at home.

Segment 2

This segment tended to be less positive towards the benefits of science and technology generally and was more concerned, on average, with risks related to nanotechnology. However, in contrast to Segment 1, they had relatively high awareness of the term ‘nanotechnology’ and various nanotechnology applications. It should be noted that even among this segment the majority felt that the benefits of various applications of nanotechnology outweighed the risks – by a sizable margin; however the ratio toward the positive was markedly smaller than that seen for Segments 3 and 4.

Segment 2 was the least likely to agree that ‘human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (although agreement was relatively high overall with a mean rating of above 8.3 out of 10). Notably, this segment was least likely to agree that ‘not vaccinating children put others at risk’ – although they were also less likely to have children aged 10 and under at home.

Segment 3

Segment 3 was defined by relatively high (although not the highest) interest in science and agreement that ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effects’. In relation to nanotechnology, this segment was the second most positive. While awareness of nanotechnology was relatively high for Segment 3 they, like Segment 1, had relatively low levels of self-reported knowledge.

Another factor making Segment 3 distinct was the highest agreement that ‘children should be protected from all risks’. This group also had the greatest proportion of children under 10 at home.

Segment 4

This group was the most positive towards science and technology. They expressed greater agreement that ‘everyone should all take an interest in science’, that ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ and that ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effects’. Equally, there was disagreement that ‘science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ and that ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’.

Segment 4 were the most likely to think that the benefits outweighed the risks for all the specific applications of nanotechnology. Notably, Segment 4 that had the highest proportion of respondents who believed they knew ‘what nanotechnology means and how it works’.

7


Attitudes toward science and technologyAttitudes towards how science and technology is changing society remain positive. Males and those living in capital cities of Australia tended to be more positive than females and those living outside of capital cities. Segments 1 and 2 tended to be relatively less positive than Segments 3 and 4.

There was a strong agreement that ‘science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest’. There was also a high level of agreement with the statements: ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’; and ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effects’.

Views were mixed towards statements relating to scientific advances ‘benefitting the rich more than they benefit the poor’, ‘technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’, and ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’.

In general, females and older participants were more cautious in their attitudes towards advances in science and technology.

Attitudes to the world around usStatements relating to the world around us saw less variation in response than was seen for statements relating to attitudes about science and technology. The vast majority of survey participants agreed strongly that ‘human activities have a significant impact on the planet’, ‘not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ and ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’.

There was some variation in responses by gender with females giving higher ratings, on average, to statements related to valuing nature, or protecting the earth.

Awareness of nanotechnology and specific nanotechnology applicationsAwareness of the term nanotechnology remains high with the vast majority (87%) of respondents having at least heard of the technology. Previous results show that there has been a continual growth in awareness over time from just over half (51%) being aware in 2005 to almost nine in ten (87%) in 2012. While awareness was high, there was a relatively low level of underpinning knowledge with just over one in five (22%) reporting that they ‘knew how it worked’.

When asked in what context they had heard about nanotechnology, respondents were most likely to mention channels through which they had heard about the technology including computing/the internet or through the media. Medical applications or devices were the most common uses of nanotechnology mentioned.

Unprompted awareness of products that contain nanotechnology also increased compared to 2011 with 36% reporting they knew of projects that contained or included nanotechnology (compared to 29% in 2011). Sunscreen proved to be the most commonly recalled item (17% of all respondents), followed by medical instruments, creams/cosmetics/moisturisers, or computers (all 6%).

As to prompted awareness of nanotechnology applications, respondents were most likely to say they had heard of new drug delivery systems through a patch on your

8


skin (56%), the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics (44%) and new solar panels using nanotechnology (36%).

Attitudes towards nanotechnology and specific nanotechnology applications Attitudes towards nanotechnology were generally positive – survey participants rated their positivity toward the potential applications of nanotechnology at 7.5 out of 10 on average.

For the most part, survey participants felt that the benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risks. However, a substantial minority (47%) did not feel well enough informed to say what the balance of risk was. There was a slight increase since the last survey in the proportion who said the benefits outweighed the risks, however, the most notable change was a decrease in the proportion stating that ‘the benefits are equal to the risks’ and an increase in mention of ‘don’t know’. This shift is likely due to a methodological change in 2012 which provided survey participants with ‘don’t know’ as a valid response option.

Attitudes relating to nanotechnology issues Respondents generally believed that nanotechnology would improve the future quality of life in Australia and there was moderate agreement that there would be a positive impact on employment and the economy.

There was widespread agreement that product labelling should provide information about any nanotechnology used, with moderate agreement that it was important to know what products contained nanotechnology. However, there may be a degree of cognitive polyphasia (the ability to hold two contradictory opinions at once) at play with few respondents saying they always read labels of products to see if a product contains nanotechnology.

Concerns about nanotechnology There was moderate agreement to the statements related to specific concerns about nanotechnology. The statement with the highest average agreement was ‘because nanotechnology is so new, there might be problems for public safety’. There was also moderate agreement with the statement ‘I am concerned about the unexpected risks of nanotechnology’.

Workplace safety was the area where respondents were least confident about giving a rating, with markedly higher proportion selecting ‘don’t know’. Overall concerns tended to be greater for females, those who spoke a language other than English at home and Segment 1.

Attitudes towards specific applications of nanotechnologyAmong those who were aware of specific applications of nanotechnology, participants were more likely to recall positive information. The application with the most positive associated information was the use of new solar panels using nanotechnology, with more than eight in ten of those aware of the technology recalling positive messages.

9


The use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics, and the use of nanoparticles to improve the nutritional benefits of food were the applications where information recalled was least positive. Even for these applications, positive messages were recalled by a larger proportion than negative messages (43% recalling positive messages for nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics compared to 17% recalling negative messages).

Medical applications or applications with environmental benefits (such as clean water or energy) were most likely to be associated with recall of positive messages.

Attitudes towards regulatory bodies and key playersParticipants gave relatively low ratings, on average, when asked whether ‘the general public is being kept well informed about nanotechnology’ (mean 3.4 out of 10). When asked to rate the degree to which ‘nanotechnology regulation and safeguards are keeping up with development of nanotechnology’ almost half of those surveyed could not provide a response. Among those who did provide a response, the average mean rating (out of 10) was 5.1 with responses concentrated toward the centre of the 10 point scale. Together, this indicates a large degree of uncertainty with relation to the appropriateness of regulation and safeguards.

It is not surprising that the organisations most likely to be trusted to inform the public about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology were science institutes and organisations such CSIRO and universities, followed by scientists. Government agencies and regulators rounded out the top three.

Survey participants were also asked to rate different groups in terms of their expertise in informing the public about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Again science institutes and scientist were the top of the list with a noticeable gap between the top two and other organisations. Mass media were rated poorly (mean 3.0 out of 10).

Support was high for almost all forms of regulation and development tested in the survey. Support was highest for ‘requiring testing of all products using nanotechnology’ (mean 7.9 out of 10). There was only moderate agreement that government agencies should ‘provide funding to private enterprises to develop nanotechnology’ with a mean support rating of 5.9 out of 10.

Seeking information about new technologies While half of survey participants (48%) said it was either ‘unlikely’ or ‘very unlikely’ that they would have looked for information about new technologies before the survey, the process of asking questions about nanotechnology seemed to pique their interest with eight in ten (81%) saying they were either ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to seek information about new technologies in the future.

The internet was by far the most popular source of information on new technologies. Among those who would use the internet, the most common method of sourcing information was a ‘Google search’. Segment 4 respondents, those who were most supportive of scientific advances, were notably more likely to cast a wide net to seek information.

Implications While awareness of nanotechnology is high, there are relatively low levels of

underpinning knowledge. This lack of knowledge does not seem to have

10


translated into negative sentiment in the same was as has been seen for other emerging technologies (for example genetically modified foods).

In terms of information channels that may influence opinion of emerging technology, it is interesting to note the particularly low ratings of mass media agencies.

Attitudes toward nanotechnology are generally positive, but there is also some desire for additional information and appropriate product labelling. This stated desire should be viewed in the context that a few survey participants say they always read product labelling or have sought information on enabling technologies in the past.

As segmentation analysis clearly shows, distinct attitudinal groupings exist within the community each with differing appetites for information about science and technology, and nanotechnology in particular. Consideration should be given to developing a deeper understanding of these segments, their underlying motivations, and the triggers that might move an individual to a higher level of engagement.

Segment 4 appears to be made up of well informed advocates for science and technology and specific biotechnological applications.

Males are consistently more positive with regard to biotechnology and specific applications. While more research is required to understand the reasons for this consideration should be given to developing gender tailored communication and engagement strategies to reach women.

Section 2 Research context2.1 Background to projectThe Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) is a Federal government department which is responsible for managing the National Enabling Technology Strategy (NETS). Among other areas, NETS has a key role to play in Public Awareness and Community Engagement related to enabling technologies such as biotechnology and nanotechnology in Australia.

The growth of nanotechnology

Nanotechnology, or the ability to manipulate matter at a molecular scale, promises radically to reshape the way we make and deploy materials. From energy production to medicine, information communication, agriculture and environmental preservation, the application of nanotechnology offers unprecedented opportunities to solve economic, engineering and social problems.1 For Australia, there are clearly great economic and social benefits to be had from the judicious use of nanotechnology. However, risks associated with the applications of nanotechnology remain largely untested, and potentially detrimental impacts on human health and the environment remain uncertain.

1 DIISR website, accessed March 2012, <http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Pages/default.aspx>

11

http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Nanotechnology/Pages/default.aspx


Importance of community attitudes

Community attitudes are crucial to the development of the Australian nanotechnology sector. If Australians are not in favour of certain technological applications, efforts by scientists on R&D will be constricted. In addition, public attitudes help shape the regulatory framework and the degree of industry uptake. If community attitudes are assumed not measured, a host of potential benefits in fields ranging from medicine to food to textiles are likely to be lost, representing a lost opportunity for individuals, industry and the nation in general.

As to nanotechnology applications, in a paper entitled “Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks about Nanotechnology?” published in 2009, Dr Craig Cormick articulated the case not only for increasing public awareness and understanding, but also for conducting sophisticated and reliable research on public attitudes to inform policy and product development.2 As suggested in Cormick’s article, an ongoing gap between rapid technological development and application and the general public’s understanding, needs and attitudes, may well carry the risk of a consumer backlash.

The need for research

Over recent years, the Department has conducted a number of surveys of community attitudes towards nanotechnology. These studies have helped gauge the state of Australian public awareness, identify knowledge gaps and track changes in awareness and attitudes over time. This research commissioned by the Department sought to revisit community attitudes towards emerging technology in particular nanotechnology and its applications to monitor any changes in attitudes and awareness. The research findings will be used to help the Department to develop strategies to engage with the community on these issues including increasing public awareness related to developments in emerging technologies.

2.2 Research objectivesSpecifically, the research objectives will be to:

Explore current attitudes towards general science and technology;

Explore awareness and understanding of emerging technologies in general (including nanotechnology and its applications);

Explore the public’s awareness and understanding of specific nanotechnology issues;

Explore attitudes towards nanotechnology including specific applications and controllers of the technology; and

Explore differences in awareness, perceptions and attitudes according to key demographic variables such as age, gender, location, education, income etc.).

Explore sources of information for science and technology issues; and

Explore attitudes and trust regarding science and technology regulators and providers of information.

2 Nanoethics (online journal), Volume 3, Number 2, pp. 167-173. Available online at <http://www.springerlink.com/content/6077809105834245>

12


Section 3 Research design Overview of studyTo meet these objectives, a multi-stage quantitative-qualitative methodology was undertaken, as illustrated in the following table:Questionnaire design and testing

4 industry/stakeholder consultation sessions (13 participants in total)

Cognitive testing with members of the public (4 interviews)

Ensure factual accuracyTest survey constructs and terminology

Quantitative survey

1000 - 19min CATI interviews 1000 – 15min online surveys

(covering biotechnology and nanotechnology issues)

Measure awareness, perceptions and attitudesDevelop segmentation of community on attitudes towards emerging technologies

Questionnaire design phase – consultations and cognitive testingStakeholder consultations were carried out to gather feedback from people involved in different aspects of nanotechnology including representatives from industry, government, peak bodies, scientists and social science practitioners to ensure that the terms used throughout the questionnaire were still relevant and that the survey covers any new and emerging issues.

Cognitive testing of the survey instrument was also undertaken with 4 members of the public to test the logic and understanding of the terms used throughout the survey. The cognitive testing found it was important to provide respondents a ‘don’t know’ option - particularly if they were not highly informed about technology issues. Interviewers were briefed to let respondents know that ‘don’t know’ was a valid answer. The cognitive testing also resulted in using more consistent scales within the survey and simplification of the definitions used.

Feedback from both fed towards the development of the final survey instrument.

Quantitative data collectionTwo sets of quantitative data were collected – via telephone (CATI) and via online (both n=1000 each). While in the past, the telephone and online surveys contained the same questionnaire in parallel. The purpose of the online survey was to supplement the main telephone survey with additional questions that budget and time constraints meant could not be covered over the phone. Both samples were independent.

The telephone sample was recruited from randomly selected telephone numbers from Sample Pages. In this iteration of the survey, with only 82% of Australian households reporting they had a landline at home3, 20% of this survey’s sample was drawn from mobile numbers to capture some of the views of mobile only households. The mobile sample was stratified by location at the metropolitan and regional level.

3 Australian Communications and Media Authority, (2012), Convergence and Communications - Report 1: Australian household consumers’ take-up and use of voice communications services

13


The landline sample was stratified by location (nationally by state/territory and, within these, by rural/regional/metropolitan areas) in such a way that the sample was in proportion to the population. In addition, within each location stratum, broad age and gender quotas were applied, again proportional to the population.

The questionnaire averaged 19 minutes in duration.

For the online survey, samples were sourced from an online panel, that is, individuals who have opted to receive email invitations to participate in surveys from our fieldwork subsidiary. Stratification and quota sampling of invitations to participate occurred as per the telephone methodology.

The fieldwork was undertaken between 15 October and 7 November inclusive.

WeightingA weighting scheme was created and applied to the entire sample to ensure the data was representative of Australians aged 16-75. While at the overall level, the sample was stratified for location, those aged under 30 were slightly underrepresented. Age and gender quotas were not set for the mobile sample. The following table compares the unweighted sample to the weighted sample to the overall population.

Table 1: Unweighted vs. weighted populations

Unweighted Weighted

CATI Online CATI Online

Gender

Male 51 49 50 50

Female 49 50 50 50

Age

16-30 years 24 23 28 28

31-50 years 40 40 38 38

51-75 years 36 37 34 34

With the exception of the demographics in the appendix, the research results presented in this report are weighted to be representative of the Australians aged 16-75 rather than just those who completed the survey.

Reporting of statistical testingTests of significance were conducted between key population characteristic such as age, gender, employment status and metropolitan vs. regional locations. These were conducted at the 95% level of confidence and are reported where appropriate.

A sample of n=1000 enables us to be 95% confident that at the overall level, a feature of the population aged 16-75 we are testing is within a range of ±3.1% of what the survey tells us. For example, this means that if we find that 50% of respondents said they thought that GM crops were grown in their state, we can be 95% confident that between 53.1% and 46.9% of the population represented by the sample actually did this.

14


A ‘significant difference’ means we can be 95% confident the difference observed between the two samples reflects a true difference in the population of interest, and is not a result of chance. Such descriptions are not value judgements on the importance of the difference. The reader is encouraged to make a judgement as to whether the differences are ‘meaningful’ or not.

Where significance testing has occurred between pairs such as male vs. female this has been undertaken as an independent samples tests. However, where significance testing has occurred between more than two categories within a group e.g. employment status, the significance testing used, tests one category against the average of the others that are not in that category combined. Such a test is ideal for multiple comparisons as it reduces the likelihood of displaying a significant difference where one does not exist. A false discovery test was also applied to the statistical testing. A false discovery test is an estimate of the proportion of the cells shown as being significant which will in fact be “false positives” (i.e. not reflective of differences in the population).

Statistically significant differences within tables are displayed by green (9) and red figures/arrows (2). Green figures indicate the figure reported is statistically higher; red indicate the figure is statistically lower.

Where the scale and question wording have allowed, comparisons have been made to the equivalent survey conducted in 2010.

Only significant differences have been reported throughout this document.

Conduct of the segmentationA segmentation of CATI respondents was conducted using the bank of 14 statements relating to values, beliefs and attitudes towards science and technology in general as well as the world around us.

The method used to categorise participants into segments was the non-hierarchical method called K-means (K-means works better on large sample and seeks clouds of points/participants within the continuum of all attitudes measured). The segments were identified using standardized ratings rather than actual ratings to limit the effect of how participants used the range of values on the scale on to the definition of segments.

The number of segments was selected on the basis of:

The change in sum of squares as the number of segments increases.

The internal consistency of the segments (no conflicting attitudes, at least one specific attitude for each identified segment).

A linear discriminant analysis was then conducted to then categorise the online respondents into the four existing segments based on the pattern of their responses to the same statements.

Section 4 Respondent profileThe following table provides an overview of the key characteristics of the respondents to the survey. After weighting for age and gender, between the two methods there were still some slight differences in terms of

15


employment status with a higher proportion of those responsible for home duties among the online respondents (5% vs. 11%). Correspondingly we had a higher share of people with children under 10 at home (28% vs. 24%). A higher proportion of students took part in the telephone survey than in the online survey (16% vs. 8%).

Table 2. Key demographic characteristics

Telephone survey

Online survey

n=1000 n=1000

Gender Male 50 50

Female 50 50

Age 16-30 years 28 28

31-50 years 38 38

51-75 years 34 34

Employment status Employed (FT/PT/Self) 58 55

Retired or Pensioner 18 18

Home duties 5 11

Student 16 8

Unemployed 3 5

Children under 10 at home Yes 24 28

No 76 72

Language other than English at home

Yes 13 11

No 87 89

Capital or non-capital city Capital city 67 67

Non capital city 33 33Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to populationIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

Section 5 Segmentation of attitudes5.1 Segmentation overviewAs with recent surveys, attitudes towards nanotechnology have remained positive. In the 2012 survey, a series of statements relating to science and technology and the world around us were included to investigate whether groupings exist in the community regarding attitudes towards emerging technologies. An attitudinal segmentation a cluster analysis of these statements was conducted. The statements included in the segmentation were:

Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it

Science and technology creates more problems than it solves

We depend too much on science and not enough on faith

16


New technologies excite me more than they concern me

Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest

The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect

Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor

We should use more natural ways of farming

People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

Human activities have a significant impact on the planet

People shouldn’t tamper with nature

I believe that everything in the world is connected

Not vaccinating children puts others at risk

Children must be protected from all risks

The order of which the statements were presented to respondents was randomised and respondents were asked the degree to which they agreed or disagreed to each. Further details of how the segmentation was conducted has been included in Section 3 - Research Design.

The segmentation analysis resulted in four segments. The results from the CATI survey form the basis of the findings from the segmentation. However, there was little difference in the distribution of the segments across the telephone and online data collection modes.

Figure 1: Distribution of Segments

Weighted; Base (CATI) n =1000; Base (CATI) n =989Note: Does not include n=11 that were not able to be classified in the statements due to a lack of variability in their responses.

17


The following section outlines in brief, the characteristics that define each segment. This is followed by a detailed discussion of each segment including differences in attitudes and demographic characteristics.

Note on understanding segment variations.

It is important to note when looking at the following segmentation results that, while a particular segment may be more likely or less likely to have agreed or disagreed with a particular statement, this would be compared to the average (mean) response for all the other segments combined - thus comparing for example Segment 1 to those not in that segment. It should also be noted that this mean value may be quite high overall. Therefore, even if a segment is the ‘least’ likely to agree with a particular statement, their response may still be quite high but lowest relative to the other scores, as the example below shows:

Figure 2. Example of variation of attitudes among segments

5.2 Segmentation profilesOverall

The segmentation categorised participants into four distinct groups based on their attitudes towards science and technology and the world around us. Two of the segments (Segment 3 and Segment 4) were found to be more positive towards science in general with Segment 4, the more ‘pro-science’ of the two. Segment 1 and 2 showed relatively lower support towards science and technology.

18


Table 3 and Table 4 show the variability of the ratings provided for each attitudinal statement that was included in the segmentation analysis. Table 5 shows the demographic differences that were apparent between the segments.

Table 3 shows that the statements regarding science and technology where there was the greatest variance between segments were:

We depend too much on science and not enough on faith.

Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it.

Science and technology creates more problems than it solves.

Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor.

Of the statements relating to the world around us the variance in ratings were greatest for:

Children must be protected from all risks; and

People shouldn’t tamper with nature.

Table 3: Attitudes towards science and technology by segment

Average out of 10 (Disagree/agree scale)

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=214 n=225 n=250 n=168 n=947

Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest 7.5 7.3 8.1 8.7 7.9

New technologies excite me more than they concern me 5.6 6.3 7.3 8.2 6.7

The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect 5.7 5.3 6.3 7.1 6.0

Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor 7.2 5.0 4.8 3.1 5.2

Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it 7.6 5.0 5.3 2.7 5.4

We depend too much on science and not enough on faith 6.9 4.3 4.1 1.2 4.4

Science and technology creates more problems than it solves 6.1 3.9 3.4 1.5 3.9

Q1c For the following statements, can you please tell me how much you disagree or agree on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree. If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responsesFilter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to populationIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

19


Table 4: Attitudes towards the world around us by segment

Average out of 10 (Disagree/agree scale)

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=230 n=223 n=256 n=153 n=935

Human activities have a significant impact on the planet 8.8 8.3 8.6 8.4 8.5

Not vaccinating children puts others at risk 8.2 7.0 8.3 8.9 8.0

We should use more natural ways of farming 8.7 7.5 7.9 5.9 7.6

I believe that everything in the world is connected 8.1 7.1 7.4 6.8 7.4

Children must be protected from all risks 8.2 3.7 8.8 4.7 6.6

People shouldn’t tamper with nature 8.4 5.9 6.3 3.6 6.3

People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs 4.2 4.3 4.7 5.5 4.6

Q1c For the following statements, can you please tell me how much you disagree or agree on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree. If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responsesFilter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to populationIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

Table 5. Segments’ key demographic characteristics

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=272 n=256 n=296 n=176 n=1000

Gender Male 37 48 51 70 50

Female 63 52 49 30 50

Age 16-30 years 22 32 29 28 28

31-50 years 35 35 39 46 38

51-75 years 43 33 32 25 34

Employment status Employed (FT/PT/Self)

50 56 60 67 58

Retired or Pensioner

25 14 16 13 18

Home duties 7 4 5 1 5

Student 13 21 16 15 16

Unemployed 3 3 3 2 3

Children under 10 at home

Yes 25 20 27 23 24

No 75 80 73 77 76

Language other than Yes 17 9 18 6 13

20


Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=272 n=256 n=296 n=176 n=1000

English at home No 83 91 82 94 87

Capital or non-capital city

Capital city 62 68 67 72 67

Non capital city 38 32 33 28 33Note: Excludes n=11 that were not able to be classified in the statements due to a lack of variability in their responses.Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to populationIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

It is clear there were two segments that were less positive towards science (Segment 1 and 2) and two segments that were relatively more positive about science and technology (Segment 3 and 4) and this is reflected in their attitudes towards the future implications of nanotechnology specifically. Figure 2 shows the degree to how positive or negative each segment felt about the implications of nanotechnology. On the whole, it could be said that all segments viewed the implications of nanotechnology positively. However, in line with sentiments towards science, on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 was extremely negative and 10 was extremely positive, Segment 3 and 4 provided the highest average scores on how they felt about the future implications of nanotechnology (7.8 and 8.4 out of 10 respectively). Segment 1 provided the lowest average score (6.9 out of 10) but only slightly lower than the average score for Segment 2 (7.1).

Figure 2: Attitudes towards potential implications of nanotechnology by segment

Q12a How positive or negative would you say you were towards the potential implications of nanotechnology? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 953; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude don’t know responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

21


Further investigation showed that where the segments differed markedly was in terms of their awareness of nanotechnology, as well as the perceptions of risks vs. benefits of nanotechnology – although these were not included in the segmentation. That it is these key measures that help further define the profile of each of the segments, particularly how the pairs differed from each other.

Figure 3: Reported awareness and knowledge of nanotechnology by segment

Q3i How much would you say you personally know about “nanotechnology”? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 1000

Figure 4: Risks vs. benefits of nanotechnology by segment

Q14 On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks are equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the risks? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 1000

Apart from an underlying difference in opinions in relation to the degree to which they support and are comfortable with science and technology advancements and feelings about the world around us, it is clear that perceptions of risks vs. benefits and support

22


for nanotechnology could be affected by how much a person feels they know about the topic. Putting these factors together with the attitudinal segmentation helps provide a clearer picture of each of the segments.

A detailed discussion of each of the segments incorporating the above results follows.

5.2.1 Segmentation in detail

Segment 1

In summary:

Segment 1 was the least enthusiastic compared to other segments about the benefits science and technology including most likely to feel that science and technology creates more problems than it solves, that scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than the poor, and we rely too much on science and not enough on faith. Compared to the other segments, Segment 1 had the lowest opinion on the future implications of nanotechnology, but also had the lowest reported awareness of nanotechnology. Paired with the highest agreement that technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it, helps to explain why this segment may be more conservative than the other segments in their attitudes towards science and technology and why a higher proportion of respondents could not say whether the benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risks. This segment had a the highest agreement that we shouldn’t tamper with nature, that everything in the world is connected, and we should use more natural ways of farming – suggesting that there is that feeling that perhaps ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Segment 1 included a comparatively higher proportion of females, those aged 51-75 and those who spoke languages other than English at home.

Attitudes towards science and technology

The defining factors of Segment 1 was high agreement to the statements that ‘technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’ (average of 7.6 out of 10) and ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (6.9 out of 10).

They also had the lowest agreement that ‘science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest’ (7.5 out of 10) and ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (5.6 out of 10) (See Table 3).

In addition to the above, a negative attitude towards science was reflected in relatively higher agreement with statements including ‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (7.2 out of 10), and ‘science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (6.1 out of 10).

Attitudes towards the world around us

As shown in Table 4, Segment 1 were the most likely of the segments to agree that ‘human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (8.8 out of 10) and ‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (8.1). They were the least likely to agree that ‘people have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs’ (4.2 out of 10).

23


Agreement was also highest in Segment 1 for: ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’ (8.7); ‘people shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (8.4) suggesting that there is almost a ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ mentality to this segment.

The strongest agreement that ‘children must be protected from all risks’ (8.2) also came from Segment 1 respondents.

Perceptions and awareness of nanotechnology

Segment 1 rated their feeling about the potential implications of nanotechnology 6.9 out of 10. This was the lowest average score of the segments but only slightly lower than that of Segment 2 (7.1 out of 10).

We find there was a significantly lower level of awareness of nanotechnology among Segment 1 members - 74% reporting they had heard of it. This includes only 5% who knew what it was and how it worked. This tells us that for Segment 1, the attitude towards science and technology may be more conservative due in part to a ‘fear of the unknown’ compared to the attitudes of Segment 2.

Notably, Segment 1 also had, by far, the lowest proportion of respondents saying the benefits outweighed the risks (26%). However, it also had a significantly higher share of respondents who could not say whether the risks outweighed the benefits or vice versa (38%). This is consistent with other findings for Segment 1, where they are less apt to judge because they feel they do not know enough about the topic to form a firm opinion.

Demographic characteristics

Compared to other segments, there was a skew towards female respondents (63%), and those who were aged 51-75 (43%). As a result, the proportion of those employed tended to be lower (50%) with pensioners making up 25% of the sample. Although a small component of the sample overall, there was a higher proportion of those responsible of home duties in Segment 1 (7%).

Thirty-eight percent of Segment 1 resided outside the capital city of their State/Territory.

Table 6. Segment 1 - key demographic characteristics

Segment 1

n=272

Gender Male 37

Female 63

Age 16-30 years 22

31-50 years 35

51-75 years 43

Employment status Employed (FT/PT/Self) 50

Retired or Pensioner 25

Home duties 7

Student 13

24


Segment 1

n=272

Unemployed 3


Yes 25

No 75


Yes 17

No 83


Capital city 37

Non capital city 63Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population

Segment 2

Segment 2 tended to less positive towards the benefits of science and technology with the lowest agreement that the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect of the four segments. In turn, they were less positive than the other segments about nanotechnology specifically. Yet, they still had a relatively high level of awareness of nanotechnology (contrasting with Segment 1) and on balance they felt the benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risk (but not as much as Segments 3 and 4). They were least likely to think that human activities have a significant impact on the planet (although agreement was relatively high for all segments) and were less likely than others to feel everything in the world was connected. Notably, they had the lowest agreement that children should be protected from all risks and were most likely to feel that not vaccinating children did not put others at risk.


As seen in Table 3, on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 was strongly disagree and 10 was strongly agree, we found that Segment 2 was the least likely of the segments to agree that that ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’ (5.3 out of 10) and ‘science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest’ (averaging 7.3 out of 10).

They were also second lowest in terms of agreement that ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (6.3 out of 10).

On the other hand, they were significantly less likely to agree than those not in that segment that ‘technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’ (5.0 out of 10).


While agreement across the board was high (8.5 out of 10), Segment 2 was the least likely to agree that ‘human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (8.3) or that ‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (7.1 out of 10) (See Table 4).

They were second lowest in terms of believing ‘people shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (5.9 out of 10). Segment 2 was also less likely to agree that ‘people have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs’ (4.3 out of 10).

25


The key difference to other segments was their degree of disagreement with the statement that ‘children must be protected from all risks’ (3.7 out of 10). They were also least likely to agree that ‘not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ (7.0 out of 10).


Segment 2 provided the second lowest rating of their thoughts on the potential implications of nanotechnology (7.1 out of 10), only just higher than that of Segment 1 (6.9 out of 10).

On balance, Segment 2 were more likely to think that the benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risk (49%) however this was second lowest of the four segments. Similarly, they were second lowest in terms of how positive or negative they felt about the future implications of nanotechnology (although the average was 7.1 out of 10).

For Segment 2, we find that there was a high level of reported awareness of nanotechnology – on par with that exhibited by Segment 3 (one of the more positive segments). The vast majority of this segment had heard of the term (93%) including 25% who knew what nanotechnology was and how it worked.


Demographic differences between Segment 2 and other respondents included a higher proportion of students (21%), and a comparatively lower number of those who spoke a language other than English at home (9%).


Segment 2

n=256

Gender Male 48

Female 52

Age 16-30 years 32

31-50 years 35

51-75 years 33



Home duties 4

Student 21

Unemployed 3


Yes 20

No 80


Yes 9

No 91


Capital city 68

Non capital city 32

26


Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population

Segment 3

In summary:

Segment 3 was defined by a high (although not the highest) agreement that new technologies excite me more than they concern them and that the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect. As such, in terms of nanotechnology, they were second most positive about its future implications. There was a high level of awareness, but this consisted mostly of those who were aware but did not know much about nanotechnology. What also stood Segment 3 apart was that they had the highest agreement that children should be protected from all risks. Using more natural ways of farming was more favoured by this group than those who were not in the segment.


Compared to other segments, there was a strong level of agreement that ‘science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest’ (8.1 out of 10) – this was the second highest rating of the four segments.

Segment 3 were also second highest in terms of agreement with the statements: ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (7.3 out of 10); and ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’ (6.3).

As to the negative aspects of science and technology, they provided significantly lower agreement with ‘science and technology creates more problems than it solves (3.4 out of 10), ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (4.1); and ‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (4.8 out of 10) – all of which were second to lowest out of the segments.


A differentiating factor of this segment was their strong belief that children must be protected from all risks (8.8 out of 10 – highest of the four segments).

They were also second highest in terms of agreement with the statement that we should use more natural ways of farming (7.9 out of 10).


On average, when asked how positive or negative they felt about the implications of nanotechnology, the average score for Segment 3 was 7.8 out of 10. More than half of Segment 3 also felt the benefits outweigh the risk (56%). Both results were second highest of the four segments.

In terms of awareness and knowledge, for Segment 3, while there was a high level of awareness overall, the majority of those who were aware of nanotechnology had heard of it but knew little or nothing about it (71% of Segment 3). This compares with Segment 4 (the most positive in their attitudes towards science) where a higher proportion reported they had heard of nanotechnology and knew how it worked.

27



Of note, there was a higher proportion of those who spoke a language other than English at home compared to the other segments.


Segment 3

n=296

Gender Male 51

Female 49

Age 16-30 years 29

31-50 years 39

51-75 years 32



Home duties 5

Student 16

Unemployed 3


Yes 27

No 73


Yes 18

No 82


Capital city 67

Non capital city 33Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population

Segment 4

In summary:

The most positive towards science and technology was Segment 4 for whom there was a greater belief that we should all take an interest in science, that new technologies excited more than concerned and that the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effects. Equally, there was disagreement that science and technology creates more problems than it solves and that we depend too much on science and not enough on faith. They were most likely to think that the benefits outweighed the risks and were the most positive about the implications of nanotechnology. Segment 4 also had the highest proportion of respondents who said they knew what nanotechnology was and how it worked.


Segment 4 was defined by strong agreement with ‘pro-science’ type statements – with averages notably higher than that presented by Segment 3. They were the most likely to agree that ‘science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an

28


interest’ (average of 8.7 out of 10); ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (8.2 out of 10); and ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’ (7.1).

This was coupled by strong disagreement with statements such as ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (1.2 out of 10); and ‘science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (1.5) – both results were the lowest for these statements.

In addition, they were the least likely to agree that ‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (2.7 out of 10); and ‘technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’


Compared to other segments, Segment 4 was the most likely to say that ‘not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ (an average of 8.9 out of 10).

Although agreement was moderate across the board, they were also most likely to agree that ‘people have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs’ (5.5). Connected to this was the lowest agreement that ‘people shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (3.6).

Statements where Segment 4 was the least likely to agree included: ‘children must be protected from all risks’ (4.7); ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’ (4.7).

Segment 4 was also the least likely to say that they ‘believe that everything in the world is connected’ (5.9).


Compared to the other segments, there was a higher proportion of males in Segment 4 (70%). Close to half (46%) of respondents in this segment was aged 31-50 with a smaller proportion aged 51-75 (25%).

This segment was more likely to be employed than the other segments combined and less likely to be conducting home duties.

Segment 4 also had a smaller share of people who spoke a language other than English at home than other segments (6%).

Close to three-quarters resided in capital cities around Australia (72%).

Table 9. Segments by key demographic characteristics

Segment 3

n=176

Gender Male 70

Female 30

Age 16-30 years 28

31-50 years 46

51-75 years 25

29


Segment 3

n=176



Home duties 1

Student 15

Unemployed 2


Yes 23

No 77


Yes 6

No 94


Capital city 72

Non capital city 28Note: Excludes n=11 that were not able to be classified in the statements due to a lack of variability in their responses.Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population

Section 6 ‘Predictors’ of attitudesThroughout this report there were consistent trends where groups within the sample felt more positively or less positively about science and technology as well as nanotechnology specifically.

The table below shows some of the groups where this occurred.More likely to be supportive of nanotechnology

Less likely to be supportive of nanotechnology

Gender:

Male Female

Age:

16-30 years 51-75 years

Awareness and knowledge of nanotechnology:

Have heard about nanotechnology Have not heard of nanotechnology

Know what it is and how it works

Employment status:

Employed Home duties

Student Retired/Pensioner

Segments:

Segment 3 and Segment 4 Segment 1 and Segment 2

Attitudes:

30


More likely to be supportive of nanotechnology

Less likely to be supportive of nanotechnology

Higher agreement with:Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interestNew technologies excite me more than they concern meNot vaccinating children puts others at risk

Higher agreement with:Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poorTechnological change happens too fast for me to keep up with itWe should use more natural ways of farmingPeople shouldn’t tamper with nature

Section 7 Attitudes towards science & technology

In summary, attitudes towards how science and technology is changing society remain positive. Males and those living in within capital cities of Australia tended to be more positive than females and those living outside of capital cities. Consistent with other findings, Segments 1 and 2 tended to be relatively less positive than Segments 3 and 4.

There was a strong agreement that science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest. There was also a high level of agreement that new technologies excite more than concern respondents, and that the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effects. Where there were more mixed views were to statements relating to scientific advances benefitting the rich more than they benefit the poor, technological change happening too fast to keep up with it, and depending too much on science and not enough on faith. In general, females were often more cautious in their attitudes towards advances in science and technology than males. Age, employment status and whether someone spoke a language other than English at home and location were also aspects where attitudes differed.

Attitudes towards how science and technology is changing societyRespondents were asked to rate how they felt about the way science and technology is changing society on a scale of 0 through to 10, where 0 meant ‘extremely negative’ and 10 meant ‘extremely positive’. As shown in Figure 5, the majority of respondents felt quite positively, with almost three quarters (73%) providing a rating of 7-10, with a mean response of 7.2 out of 10.

31


Figure 5. Attitudes towards the way science and technology is changing society

Q1i How would you say you feel about how science and technology is changing society? 0-10 extremely negative to extremely positive scale. 2012 Only, CATI Only, Base n = 955; Total n = 1000

While this question was asked with different wording and a different scale in 2011, the generally positive sentiment towards science and technology among the community has remained consistent (82% in 2011 stated that they felt ‘strongly positive’ or ‘tend to positive’).

A few demographic differences emerged in regards to this measure. Males (77% providing a rating of 7-10 compared to 69% among females) and people living in capital cities (75% providing a rating of 7-10 compared to 68% among those living outside capital cities) were significantly more likely to provide a positive response.

Consistent with the sentiment of each of the segments, Segment 1 and 2 provided significantly lower ratings about how they felt about science and technology is changing society and Segment 3 and 4 provided significantly more positive ratings (See Table 10).

Table 10: Attitudes towards the way science and technology is changing society by segment

Average out of 10 (0-10 Extremely negative to extremely positive scale)

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 1

Segment 2

Total

n=253 n=247 n=282 n=173 n=955

How would you say you feel about how science and technology is changing society

6.4 6.9 7.7 8.4 7.2

Q1i How would you say you feel about how science and technology is changing society Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 955; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

32


Attitudes towards science and technologyRespondents were asked to rate their agreement with a range of attitudinal statements about science and technology on a scale of 0-10, where 0 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 10 was ‘strongly agree’. As detailed in Figure 6, overall attitudes towards technological and scientific advances were relatively positive although there were some statements that clearly divided respondents more than others. While the previous results covered attitudes for each segment, the following results relate to total population.

Figure 6. Attitudes towards science and technology

Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that… Weighted to population; Base n = from 948 to 996; Total n = 1000

Respondents were most likely to agree that ‘science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest’ with four-in-five (80%) providing an agreement rating of 7-10. There was lower but still positive agreement with the statement ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (58% provided a rating of 7 out of 10 or above). This latter statement was found to be a key factor in differentiating the four segments.

There was a large spread in responses towards the statement ‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’, with respondents just as likely to providing a response of 7-10 or 4-6 out of 10 (44%). There were also mixed views on whether ‘technological change happens to fast for me to keep up with it’ and ‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’. For the former, 43% provided a rating of 7 or above, although almost a quarter rated their agreement 4-6 (24%) while a third said 0-3 out of 10 (33%). For the latter statement, respondents were most likely to provide middling responses of 4-6 (38%), with a further third (34%) rating their agreement at 7-10 and 28% at 0-3 out of 10.

Respondents were most likely to provide low agreement ratings to the statements ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (41% provided a rating of 0-3 out of 10) and ‘science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (47% provided an agreement rating of 0-3 out of 10).

33


There were several significant differences in attitudes to science and technology by gender, as detailed below in Table 11. In general, females were often more cautious in their attitudes towards advances in science and technology than males.

Females were significantly more likely to agree that:

‘Technological change happens to fast for me to keep up with it’ (mean agreement rating of 5.9 compared to 4.8 among males);

‘Science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (4.4 vs. 3.4); and

‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (4.8 vs. 4.0).

Females were also significantly less likely to agree that:

‘New technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (6.4 compared to 7.1 among males); and

‘The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’ (5.8 vs. 6.2).

Table 11. Attitudes towards science and technology by gender

Average out of 10 (0-10 Strongly disagree/strongly agree scale) Male Female

Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it 4.8 5.9

Science and technology creates more problems than it solves 3.4 4.4

We depend too much on science and not enough on faith 4.0 4.8

New technologies excite me more than they concern me 7.1 6.4

Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest 7.9 7.8

The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect 6.2 5.8

Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor 5.1 5.3Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that… Weighted to population; Base n = from 948 to 996; Total n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

There were also a number of significant differences by age, as outlined in Table 12. Older respondents tended to be more hesitant in some of their attitudes towards science and technology. For example, those aged 51-75 provided significantly higher mean agreement ratings than other age groups with regards to the following more negative statements, while the younger age groups often provided lower mean agreement ratings:

‘Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’ (6.4 among 51-75 year-olds compared to 4.2 among 16-30 year-olds)

‘Science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (4.1 compared to 3.7 among 31-50 year-olds)

‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (4.8 compared to 4.2 among both other age groups)

However, 51-75 year-olds also provided significantly higher ratings in response to:

34


‘Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest’ (8.1 compared to 7.6 among 16-30 year-olds)

‘The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect’ (6.3 compared to 5.8 among 31-50 year-olds)

In addition, the youngest group of respondents were most likely to agree that ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (7.2 compared to 6.5 among 31-50 year-olds).

Table 12. Attitudes towards science and technology by age

Average out of 10 (0-10 Strongly disagree/strongly agree scale)

16-30 years

31-50 years

51-75 years

Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it 4.2 5.3 6.4

Science and technology creates more problems than it solves 3.9 3.7 4.1

We depend too much on science and not enough on faith 4.2 4.2 4.8

New technologies excite me more than they concern me 7.2 6.5 6.6

Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest

7.6 7.8 8.1

The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect 5.9 5.8 6.3

Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor

5.3 4.9 5.3

Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that… Weighted to population; Base n = from 948 to 996; Total n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

Some differences by employment status were observed, and these generally reflected the differences by age. Those who were retired or pensioners were often more wary of science and technology than those who were students or currently employed. Those who were engaged in ‘home duties’ were also more wary.

Those who spoke a language other than English at home tended to be more sceptical. For example, they were significantly more likely to agree that ‘science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (4.7 compared to 3.8 among those who did not speak a language other than English at home), ‘we depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (5.4 compared to 4.3) and ‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (5.6 compared to 5.1).

Location also had some influence over how people felt about science and technology. Those in capital cities were significantly more likely to agree with the statement ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (6.8 compared to 6.5) and more likely to disagree with the statement ‘scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (5.4 compared to 5.0) than those living outside capital cities.

As covered in Section 3, these statements in addition to statements about the world around us were included in the segmentation analysis. Details on how each segment rated on these statements is covered in Section 3.

35


Section 8 Attitudes to the world around us

There was less variation in the statements about the world around us. The vast majority agreed strongly that ‘Human activities have a significant impact on the planet’, ‘Not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ and ‘We should use more natural ways of farming’.

There was some variation in responses by gender with females placing more value on protecting the earth than males.

Respondents were also asked to rate their agreement with a range of more general statements about the world around them, again using a scale of 0-10, where 0 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 10 was ‘strongly agree’. There was generally less of a distribution in responses with regards to these statements than those relating to science and technology (as seen in Figure 6).

Figure 7. Attitudes towards the world around us

Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that… Weighted to population; Base n = from 935 to 990; Total n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

As shown above in Figure 7 there was high agreement that:

‘Human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (88% providing an agreement rating of 7-10);

‘Not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ (79% rating 7-10);

‘We should use more natural ways of farming’ (74% rating 7-10); and

‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (69% rating 7-10).

36


However, respondents were more divided in relation to:

‘Children must be protected from all risks’ (53% provided a rating of 7-10, but 28% said 4-6 and 19% 0-3);

‘People shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (50% 7-10, 35% 4-6 and 15% 0-3); and

‘People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs’ (24% 7-10, 42% 4-6 and 33% 0-3).

Significant differences were observed in relation to these statements by a number of demographic measures, particularly gender (Table 13). In general, females tended to place more value on preserving the natural world than males.

They were significantly more likely to agree that:

‘Human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (8.7 out of 10 for females compared to 8.3 among males);

‘We should use more natural ways of farming’ (8.0 compared to 7.3);

‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (7.9 compared to 6.9); and

‘People shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (6.6 compared to 6.0).

Table 13. Attitudes to the world around us by gender

Male Female

Human activities have a significant impact on the planet 8.3 8.7

Not vaccinating children puts others at risk 8.0 8.1

We should use more natural ways of farming 7.3 8.0

I believe that everything in the world is connected 6.9 7.9

Children must be protected from all risks 6.4 6.8

People shouldn’t tamper with nature 6.0 6.6

People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs 4.6 4.6Q1c On a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that… Weighted to population; Base n = from 935 to 990; Total n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

There were fewer differences by age, although those aged 31-50 (and thus more likely to have children under 10) were significantly more likely to agree that ‘Not vaccinating children puts others at risk’ (8.3) than those aged 16-30 (7.5).

There were also some differences by employment status. Those who nominated ‘home duties’ as their current employment status were significantly more likely than all other groups to agree that ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’ (8.5 out of 10) and ‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (8.1 out of 10). Students were more likely to agree that ‘human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (8.8 out of 10).

As would be expected, those with children under 10 at home were significantly more likely than those without to agree that ‘children must be protected from all risks’

37


(7.1 compared to 6.4). This group was also more likely to agree that ‘people shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (6.6 compared to 6.2 for those without children under 10).

Further, those who spoke a language other than English at home were significantly more likely to agree that ‘I believe that everything in the world is connected’ (8.0 compared to 7.3) and ‘children must be protected from all risks’ (7.9 compared to 6.4), but also that ‘people have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs’ (5.3 compared to 4.5).

There were some differences by location. Those living outside of capital cities were significantly more likely to agree that ‘we should use more natural ways of farming’ (7.8 compared to 7.5 for capital city dwellers). Those in Queensland were significantly more likely than those in all other states to agree that ‘human activities have a significant impact on the planet’ (8.8 out of 10). Notably, those in New South Wales were more likely than those in Victoria to agree that ‘children must be protected from all risks’ (6.9 compared to 6.2).

The statements on attitudes about the world around us were also used in the segmentation. The relative differences in responses for segments is covered in Table 4 in Section 3.

Section 9 Awareness of nanotechnology & specific nanotechnology applications

In summary, awareness of the term nanotechnology remains high with the vast majority (87%) of respondents having at least heard of the term. Previous results show that there has been a continual growth in awareness over the years. In 2012, just over one in five (22%) reported they had heard of nanotechnology and knew how it worked.

When asked in what context they had heard about nanotechnology, respondents were most likely to mention sources from which they had heard about nanotechnology including computing/the internet or through the media. Medical applications or devices were the most common uses of nanotechnology mentioned.

Unprompted awareness of products that contain nanotechnology also increased compared to 2011 with 36% reporting they knew of projects that contained or included nanotechnology. Sunscreen proved to be the most commonly known item (17% of all respondents), followed by medical instruments, creams/cosmetics/moisturisers, or computers (all 6%).

As to prompted awareness of nanotechnology applications, respondents were most likely to say they had heard of new drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin (56%), the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics (44%) and new solar panels using nanotechnology (36%).

9.1 Awareness of nanotechnologyAs seen in Figure 8, almost nine in ten (87%) respondents had heard of nanotechnology, with almost two thirds responding that they ‘had heard of nanotechnology but knew very little or nothing about it’ (66%), and a further fifth

38


(22%) stating that they knew ‘what nanotechnology means and how it works’. Only 11% had not heard of nanotechnology.

Figure 8. Level of knowledge about nanotechnology

Q3i How much would you say you personally know about “nanotechnology”?Weighted to population; Base n = 1000

Although this was asked as a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question in 2011, results suggest that knowledge has increased in 2012, with 76% saying they had heard of nanotechnology in 2011 compared to 87% in 2012. This reflects a continual increase since 2005, when only 51% said they had heard of nanotechnology (See Figure 9).

39


Figure 9. Level of knowledge about nanotechnology by wave

Q3i How much would you say you personally know about “nanotechnology”? Filter: Landline only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; base n = 1298

Once again, differences by gender emerged. Males were significantly more likely than females to report they ‘knew what nanotechnology means and how it works’ (30% compared to 14% for females). Knowledge also appeared to lower for older respondents with 84% of those aged 51-75 having heard of nanotechnology compared to 91% of 16-30 year-olds and 88% of 31-50 year-olds.

Those who were employed were significantly more likely to say they had heard of nanotechnology (90% compared to 79% who were retired/pensioners and 77% who were engaged in home duties).

There was some difference by location, with those in NSW significantly less likely to say they had heard of nanotechnology than those in all other states (84%) compared to all other states (89%).

There was also a strong correlation between knowledge of nanotechnology and the attitudes to science and technology and the world around us outlined in Section 1, above.

Having knowledge of nanotechnology was strongly correlated with feeling positively towards the way science and technology is changing society more generally. Just over half (55%) of those who had never heard of nanotechnology rated the impact of science and technology positively (a rating of 7-10), compared to 73% of those who had heard of nanotechnology but new very little or nothing about it and 83% of those who knew what nanotechnology meant and how it works.

Further, those who had heard of nanotechnology were more likely to agree that ‘new technologies excite me more than they concern me’ (6.9 compared to 5.6) than those who had not, and were less likely to agree that:

40


‘Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it’ (5.2 compared to 6.6);

‘Science and technology creates more problems than it solves’ (3.8 compared to 5.2);

‘We depend too much on science and not enough on faith’ (5.7 compared to 4.2); and

‘Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor’ (6.1 compared to 5.1).

Attitudes to the world around them were also correlated with knowledge of nanotechnology. Those who have heard of nanotechnology were significantly less likely to agree that:

‘We should use more natural ways of farming’ (7.6 compared to 8.1);

‘Children should be protected from all risks’ (6.4 compared to 7.8); and

‘People shouldn’t tamper with nature’ (6.1 compared to 7.6)

This was reflected in the differences in the levels of awareness between the segments (See Section 3 for further details).

9.2 Understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology

Respondents were asked a series of statements about their knowledge and whether they would like to know more about nanotechnology on a 0-10 scale where 0 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 10 was ‘strongly agree’.

As Figure 10 illustrates, above, there was also a broad distribution in terms of respondents’ understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology, but strong agreement that they would like to know more.

41


Figure 10. Attitudinal statements about nanotechnology – understanding and knowledge

Q10i B_C Q11a A Do you disagree or agree that…(Understanding and knowledge) Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 941 to 993; Total n = 1000

Similar proportions provided ratings of 0-3, 4-6 and 7-10 in relation to the statements ‘nanotechnology is difficult to understand’ (average rating of 5.5) and ‘I still really do not understand what nanotechnology is or how it could be used’ (4.8). The latter question was also asked in 2011 and responses were similarly distributed.

In 2012 over three quarters (76%) provided ratings of 7-10 in response to the statement ‘I would definitely like to know more about nanotechnology and its potential applications’, making the average agreement rating for this question 7.7. A similar sentiment was apparent in 2011, when 75% were in agreement with the statement.

Age and gender differences in understanding and knowledge of nanotechnology were evident. Females and those aged 51-75 were much more likely to say they found nanotechnology hard to understand and that they would like to know more about it (See Table 14).

Those who spoke languages other than English were particularly more likely to find nanotechnology difficult to understand (8.2 out of 10).

42


Table 14. Understanding and knowledge by gender and age

Average out of 10 Gender Age

Male Female 16-30 years

31-50 years

51-75 years

n=482 n=443 n=227 n=374 n=324

I would definitely like to know more about nanotechnology and its potential applications

4.5 5.2 4.1 4.8 5.7

I still really do not understand what nanotechnology is or how it could be used

7.7 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.9

Nanotechnology is difficult to understand 5.2 5.8 4.9 5.3 6.3Q10i B_C Q11a A Do you disagree or agree that…(Understanding and knowledge) (Average) by Banner - Demographics Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 941 to 993; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

Analysis by segment showed that Segment 4 – with the highest reported self awareness of nanotechnology – was the least likely to say they wanted to know more about it and its potential applications, followed by Segment 2. Segment 2 was the least likely to agree they still really do not understand what nanotechnology is or how it could be used – reinforcing their attitudes are based on a perceived level of knowledge as opposed to Segment 1’s attitude towards nanotechnology where there is a relatively lower level of understanding.

Table 15. Attitudinal statements about nanotechnology – understanding and knowledge by segment

Average out of 10 Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=245 n=237 n=271 n=172 n=925

I would definitely like to know more about nanotechnology and its potential applications

6.3 4.5 5.0 3.3 4.9

I still really do not understand what nanotechnology is or how it could be used

7.9 7.3 7.8 7.8 7.7

Nanotechnology is difficult to understand 6.6 5.3 5.6 4.0 5.5Q10i B_C Q11a A Do you disagree or agree that…(Understanding and knowledge) (Average) by SegmentFilter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 941 to 993; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

Context in which respondents had heard about nanotechnology

Respondents who were aware of nanotechnology were asked, unprompted, about the context in which they had heard of it. All mentions are outlined in Figure 11.

43


Figure 11. Context in which respondents had heard about nanotechnology (unprompted)

%

Computing/the internet 16

Media/TV/news/magazines/read about it/movies 15

Medical devices 14

Medical applications (general mention/NFI) 14

Micro or small science or technology 8

Sunscreen lotions/sunblock products 6

Science fiction/futuristic 7

School/education/university 5

Small robots 4

Microchips/microcircuits 3

Areas of science (chemistry/physics/biology/biotechnolgy etc) 2

Moisturisers/cosmetics 2

Word of mouth 2

I-Pod Nano product 2

Engineering/manufacturing/engineering 2

Miniaturisation 2

Textiles 1

Mobile phones 1

Atoms and molecules 1

Paint 1

Health and safety issues 1Note only top 20 mentions listed above.Q4a and b In what context have you heard about the term “nanotechnology”?Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 873; Total n = 1000

Respondents were most likely to say they had heard about nanotechnology from the internet (16%), from the ‘media/TV/news/magazines/read about it/movies’ (15%), followed by mentions of ‘medical devices’ (14%) and ‘medical applications’ (14%).

With regards to total mentions, there were a number of differences by gender in 2012. Males were significantly more likely than females to mention:

Medical devices (18% compared to 10%);

Medical applications (16% compared to 11%);

Micro or small science or technology (10% compared to 5%).

There was also variation noted by age. Those aged 16-30 were significantly more likely to mention ‘from school/education/university’ (14% compared to 2% among all

44


other age groups), while those aged 51-75 were more likely to mention ‘medical applications’ (17% compared to 10% among 16-30 year-olds) or ‘sunscreen lotions’ (13% compared to 1% among 16-30 year-olds and 4% among 31-50 year olds).

Employment status also influenced the context in which people had heard of nanotechnology. Unsurprisingly, those who were employed were more likely to mention ‘the internet’ (18%). Those who were retired/pensioners were more likely to mention ‘sunscreen lotions’ (11%).

Those who spoke a language other than English at home were more likely to mention ‘the internet’ than those who did not (24% compared to 15%).

There were many differences with regards to people’s level of awareness of nanotechnology, as outlined in Table 16, below. As would be expected, those who ‘knew what nanotechnology means and how it works’ were more likely to mention most of the applications and locations than those who had ‘heard of it but know very little or nothing about it’, including, for example:

‘Computing/the internet’ (23% compared to 14%);

‘Medical devices’ (30% compared to 9%);

‘Medical applications’ (26% compared to 10%);

‘Micro or small science or technology’ (15% compared to 5%); and

‘Sunscreen lotions’ (10% compared to 5%).

However, those who had ‘heard of [nanotechnology] but know very little or nothing about it’ were more likely to mention ‘media/TV/news/magazines/read about it/movies’ (18% compared to 8%).

Table 16. Nanotechnology context by awareness of nanotechnology

Have heard of it but know very little or nothing about it

Know what nanotechnology

means and how it works

Computing/the internet 14 23

Media/TV/news/magazines/read about it/movies 18 8

Medical devices 9 30

Medical applications (general mention/NFI) 10 26

Micro or small science or technology 5 15

Sunscreen lotions/sun block products 5 10

Science fiction/futuristic 6 7

School/education/university 5 8

Small robots 3 6

Microchips/microcircuits 2 6

Areas of science (chemistry/physics/biology/biotechnology etc)

1 5

Q4a and b In what context have you heard about the term “nanotechnology”?

45


Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 873; Total n = 1000Note: Only Top 12 mentions listedIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

9.2.1 Awareness of products containing nanotechnology

All participants were asked, if they knew of any products that include or are made with nanotechnology. The majority (57%) said ‘no’, while 36% said ‘yes’. This marks a significant increase in knowledge of products when compared to 2011, when only 29% said ‘yes’.

Figure 12. Nanotechnology – awareness of products

Q7ai Do you know of any products that include nanotechnology or are made with nanotechnology? Filter: CATI only; Weighted to populationIndicates statistically significant difference compared to 2011

The most common product respondents were aware of was ‘sunscreen’ (mentioned by 17% of the total sample), followed by ‘medical instruments/health diagnostics’ (6%), ‘creams/cosmetics/face creams/moisturisers’ (6%) and ‘computers’ (6%). Results are detailed in Figure 13.

46


Figure 13. Nanotechnology – unprompted awareness of specific products

Q7b What products are you aware of? (Rebased to population) Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; Base n = 1000

When the data was analysed by age, it emerged that older respondents were significantly more likely to say they were aware of products that include nanotechnology than younger respondents (44% of 51-75 year-olds aware compared to 34% of 31-50 year-olds and 29% of 16-30 year-olds).

Those with children under 10 at home were significantly less likely to say they were aware of products that use/include nanotechnology than those without (63% ‘no’ compared to 55%), although those without children under 10 were significantly more likely to say ‘don’t know’ (8% compared to 2%).

As to specific products, not surprisingly, females were significantly more likely than males to mention ‘creams/cosmetics/face creams/moisturisers’ (8% compared to 4%) while males were more likely to mention ‘paint’ and ‘electronics/semi-conductors’ (3% compared to 1% respectively).

Knowledge of specific products also varied by age. Those aged 51-75 were again significantly more likely to mention ‘sunscreen’ (25% mentioning compared to 9% of 16-30 year-olds). In addition, those aged 16-30 were more likely to mention ‘computers’ (8% compared to 4%) and ‘mobile phones’ (5% compared to 1%) than those aged 51-75 years.

Those who spoke a language other than English at home were also significantly more likely to mention ‘sunscreen’ (18% compared to 6%).

47


Consistent with overall awareness results, we find that Segment 1 had the lowest unprompted awareness of products containing or using nanotechnology. Specific applications tended to be higher for Segment 4 including 53% who could name at least one applications and 26% who mentioned sunscreen.

Table 17: Nanotechnology – unprompted awareness of specific products by segment

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=272 n=256 n=296 n=176 n=1000

Not aware of nanotechnology 75 64 64 47 64

Sunscreen 9 21 15 26 17

Medical instruments/health diagnostics 4 6 6 8 6

Creams/cosmetics/face creams/moisturisers

4 5 8 6 6

Computers 3 3 7 11 6

Medical applications (general mention NFI)

2 5 4 9 5

Mobile phones 3 1 4 4 3

Paint 1 2 1 6 2

Electronics/Semi-conductors 1 2 1 6 2

I-Pod Nanotechnology 2 2 2 3 2

Clothing using nanotechnology 0 2 1 4 2

Drug delivery systems 0 1 2 4 2

Carbon nanotubes 0 1 0 4 1

Space industry 0 1 0 1 1

Microchip for pets/Animal tracking for veterinarian or animal protection uses

0 0 0 2 1

Glazing finishers 0 0 1 2 1

Solar (specific mention) 0 1 0 1 1

Other 4 6 6 11 6Q7b What products are you aware of? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

9.3 Awareness of specific nanotechnology applications

All respondents were asked if they had heard of any from a list of eight applications of nanotechnology, as detailed in Figure 14.

Over half (56%) had heard of ‘new drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin’, making this the most commonly heard of application. This was followed by ‘the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics’ (44%) and ‘new solar panels using nanotechnology’ (36%). ‘Nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and

48


freshness’ elicited the lowest level of awareness, with 17% stating that they had heard of this application. Awareness of specific applications has remained fairly consistent since 2011.

Figure 14. Nanotechnology – prompted awareness of specific applications

Q8a Have you heard of any of the following uses of nanotechnology? Filter: CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 2012 – 1000; 2011 – 500.

In terms of gender, males were significantly more likely to say they had heard of a number of applications than females, specifically:

New solar panels using nanotechnology (39% compared to 32%);

Water filtration through nanosized filters (37% compared to 22%); and

Carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing (35% compared to 17%).

Awareness also differed by age, with the youngest and oldest group differing in their responses on a number of measures. Younger people (16-30) were significantly more likely to say they had heard of ‘new solar panels using nanotechnology’ (42% compared to 30% among 31-50 year-olds) and ‘carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing’ (30% compared to 26% among 31-50 year-olds and 22% among 51-75 year-olds).

Older people (51-75), however, were significantly more likely to say they had heard of:

'New drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin’ (65% compared to 45% among 16-30 year-olds)

'The use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics’ (52% compared to 38% among 16-30 year-olds)

49


'Nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and freshness’ (20% compared to 16% among 16-30 year-olds and 14% among 31-50 year-olds).

Employment status also influenced the applications people were aware of. Employed respondents were significantly more likely to say they had heard of:

'Water filtration through nanosized filters’ (32%);

'Carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing’ (28%); and

'Using nano silver which provides anti-bacterial surfaces in consumer products such as fridges and washing machines’ (24%).

Meanwhile, those who were retired or pensioners were more likely to be aware of ‘new drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin’ (64%) compared to those who were not retired or pensioners (55%).

Awareness of some applications of nanotechnology also varied depending on location. Those in South Australia were more likely to be aware of 'water filtration through nanosized filters’ (42% compared to an average of 29%), while those in Western Australia were more likely to say they had heard of ‘the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics’ (55% compared to an average of 42%). There were no differences in terms of capital dwellers vs. non capital city residents.

Predictably, those who had heard of nanotechnology were more likely to say they had heard of all the applications than those who had not. Further, among those who had heard of it, the people who knew what nanotechnology means and how it works were also more likely to have heard of all applications than those who had heard of it but knew very little or nothing about it, as shown below in Table 18.

Table 18 - Nanotechnology – prompted awareness of specific applications

Have not heard of it

Have heard of it but

know very little or nothing about it

Know what nanotechnology means and how it

works

Subtotal - Have heard

of it

New drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin

33 53 79 59

The use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics

13 41 68 48

New solar panels using nanotechnology

18 34 50 38

Water filtration through nanosized filters

14 25 54 32

Carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing

8 19 57 28

Using nano silver which provides anti-bacterial surfaces in consumer products such as fridges and washing machines

7 17 34 21

Using nanoparticles to improve the nutritional qualities of food

3 17 24 19

50


Have not heard of it

Have heard of it but


Know what nanotechnology means and how it

works

Subtotal - Have heard

of it

Nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and freshness

11 16 23 18

At least 1 of the above 50 83 98 86

Q8a Have you heard of any of the following uses of nanotechnology? Filter: CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

As with awareness overall, we see a similar pattern according to the segments with significantly lower awareness reported amongst members of Segment 1 and higher reported awareness among Segment 4 respondents (See Table 19).

Table 19 - Nanotechnology – prompted awareness of specific applications by segment

% Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=272 n=256 n=296 n=176 n=1000


45 61 55 69 56


31 48 44 57 44

New solar panels using nanotechnology 28 36 39 43 36

Water filtration through nanosized filters 22 30 28 43 30

Carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing 13 27 26 44 26


14 18 20 32 20


17 14 18 21 17


16 14 18 20 17

At least one of the above 73 86 82 91 82Q8a Have you heard of any of the following uses of nanotechnology?Filter: CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

Section 10 Attitudes towards nanotechnology and specific nanotechnology applications

Attitudes towards nanotechnology are high with ratings on how people felt about the potential implications of nanotechnology averaging 7.5 out of 10.

51


For the most part, respondents felt that the benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risk but a substantial proportion of the respondents did not feel equipped to say what the balance of risk was. There was a slight increase since the last survey in those who said the benefits outweighed the risks, however, the most notable change was the shift from those who said the benefits are equal to the risks to those saying ‘don’t know’ – although in 2012 respondents were advised that ‘don’t know’ was a valid response.

10.1 General attitudes towards nanotechnology Early in the survey, all respondents were asked how they felt towards the potential implications of nanotechnology on a scale where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive. Attitudes towards the implications of nanotechnology are generally positive. The average agreement rating was 7.5 out of 10, with 74% providing a rating of 7-10, 24% 4-6 and 2% 0-3.

Figure 15. Attitudes towards the potential implications of nanotechnology and other technologies

Q12a How positive or negative, would you say you feel towards the potential implications of nanotechnology. Please use a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive? If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so. Start of survey)Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 953; Total n = 1000

Towards the end of the survey, the same question was repeated, and it appears that the survey may have influenced some respondents’ feelings towards nanotechnology. The average agreement rating was significantly lower at 7.1 compared to 7.5, when asked earlier in the survey. The proportion rating their attitude at 7-10 decreased from 74% to 68%, while those rating it 4-6 increased from 24% to 29%. However, it should be noted that biggest difference was the increase in those who reported ‘don’t know’ responses (from 47 respondents to 123 respondents).

Gender had a strong influence on attitudes towards the implications of nanotechnology, with males feeling significantly more positive overall (an average rating of 7.8 compared to 7.2 among females).

The same was true of age. Those aged 16-30 were more positive on average than those aged 31-50 (7.7 compared to 7.3).

52


There were few differences by employment status, although those engaged in ‘home duties’ were significantly less positive on average than all others (6.9 compared to 7.5 overall).

There were no differences in attitudes in terms of location.

As we have seen through the segmentation, higher levels of awareness and knowledge of nanotechnology were correlated with more positive attitudes towards its potential implications. Those who had heard of nanotechnology, regardless of their level of knowledge, were significantly more positive towards the potential implications of nanotechnology on average than those who had not heard of it (7.5 compared to 7.0). Among those who were aware, those who knew what nanotechnology means and how it works were significantly more supportive than those who had heard about it but knew very little or nothing about it (7.9 compared to 7.4).

As previously discussed, these differences are reflected in differences observed across the segments (See Figure 16).

Figure 16: Attitudes towards potential implications of nanotechnology by segment

Q12a How positive or negative would you say you were towards the potential implications of nanotechnology? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 953; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude don’t know responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

10.1.1 Risks vs. benefits of nanotechnology

All respondents in the telephone (CATI) survey were asked if they thought the risks of nanotechnology outweigh the benefits, if the risks and benefits are equal, or if the benefits outweigh the risks. Results are shown above in Figure 17.

Almost half (49%) said they thought the benefits outweighed the risks, while 18% thought the risks and benefits were equal. Only 6% said that the risks outweighed the

53


benefits, although over one quarter (27%) ‘couldn’t say’ or ‘didn’t know’, again reflecting the finding that many people felt they lacked an informed understanding of nanotechnology and its implications to make a judgment.

Figure 17. Perceptions of the risk associated with nanotechnology

Q14 On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks are equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the risks? Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = 1000

As Figure 18 shows, since 20111, people have moved away from saying that the risks are equal to the benefits (28% in 2011 compared to 19% in 2012) and towards ‘can’t say/don’t know’ (16% in 2011 compared to 27% in 2012). However, these results do not appear to reflect any long-term trend, with results varying considerably from wave to wave. It should also be noted in the 2012 survey, respondents were expressly told that ‘don’t know’ was a valid answer given that although many had heard of nanotechnology, for the most part, respondents had heard of it but said they knew little or nothing about it (See Section 9 - Awareness of nanotechnology & specific nanotechnology applications).

54


Figure 18. Perceptions of the risk associated with nanotechnology by wave

Q14 On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks are equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the risks?Filter: Weighted to population; Base n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared 2011

When looking at gender it emerges that males were significantly more likely than females to say the benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risks (61% compared to 38% of females), while females were more likely to say ‘can’t say’ or ‘don’t know’ (37% compared to 17%). This is consistent with the segmentation and other results when looking at knowledge and awareness by gender.

Also consistent with other findings, in terms of age, older people appeared to be more hesitant to comment on the implications of nanotechnology than younger people. Those aged 16-30 were significantly more likely to say that the benefits outweighed the risks than those aged 51-75 (59% compared to 44%), while those aged 51-75 were significantly more likely to say ‘can’t say’ or ‘don’t know’ (32% compared to 16% among 18-30 year-olds).

No significant differences were found by language spoken, presence of children under 10 or location.

Perceptions of the risks vs. benefits were correlated with reported awareness of nanotechnology much in line with the differences observed across the attitude segments. Relative to other segments, Segment 4 with the highest level of reported awareness, was most likely to believe that the benefits outweighed the risks. Segment 3 was also more likely to have this belief than those not in that segment. Close to half of Segment 2 (49%) felt the benefits outweighed the risks however, they did tend to be more cynical about the benefits of science and technology – although they admit there are some. Segment 1 were the least likely to believe that the risks outweighed the benefits, however they were the most likely to feel that were not well informed enough to judge.

55


Figure 19: Risks vs. benefits of nanotechnology by segment

Q14 On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks are equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the risks? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 1000

10.1.2 Support for nanotechnology relative to other technologies

In a supplementary question in the online survey, respondents were asked how they felt towards a range of technologies (including nanotechnology) on a scale where 0 was completely against it and 10 was completely supportive. Results are illustrated in Figure 20.

Nanotechnology came third in terms of support, with an average support rating of 6.9 out of 10. However, nanotechnology was one of the categories of technology where there was a notable proportion of respondents who could not say what their level of support was highlighting that it is one of the less known and less accessible areas of science.

Respondents felt most positively towards stem cell research (7.6), and the role of science and technology in addressing climate change (7.0). The majority also felt positively towards quantum computing research (6.8).

56


Figure 20. Feelings towards nanotechnology and other technologies – Online only

Q22i What is your level of support for the following science and technology developments? If for any of the technologies, you are not sure, please just say so. Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is completely against it and 10 is completely supportive, how would you say you feel towards...

Feelings were far more mixed in relation to genetically modified foods and cloning. The highest proportion provided a middling response of 4-6 (38% for both) to both these technologies, but a similar proportion expressed low support (0-3, 35% for GM, 36% for cloning), while only a quarter expressed high support (7-10, 27% for GM and 26% for cloning).

10.1.3 Impact of nanotechnology on our way of life in the future

Online respondents were asked what they thought the impact of a range of technologies (including nanotechnology) would have on things in the future. Respondents were most likely to think that stem cell research would ‘improve our way of life in the future’ (82%), followed by biotechnology and nanotechnology (both at 61%). Notably, there were high levels of uncertainty over the impact of both biotechnology and nanotechnology, with 31% saying they didn’t know what the impact of these technologies would be (See Figure 21).

57


Figure 21. Future impacts of nanotechnology

Q1b (Online) Do you think these technologies will generally improve, have no effect, or make things worse in the future?Filter: 2012 only and Online only n=1000

There was a diversity of attitudes also in relation to genetic modification with 41% stating it would ‘improve our life in future’ but also 30% stating it would ‘make things worse in future’. Respondents were most likely to feel negatively about the impact of cloning of animals (35% stating it would ‘make things worse in the future’) and cloning human embryos (41% stating it would ‘make things worse in the future’).

A different scale was used in the 2011 version of the survey with respondents asked whether they were ‘excited’, ‘hopeful’, ‘concerned’, ‘alarmed’ or ‘neutral’ about these. Similarly to the 2012 survey, respondents were most likely to feel ‘excited’ or ‘hopeful’ in relation to stem cell research (36% and 45%, respectively), followed by ‘nanotechnology’ .

10.1.4 Unprompted attitudes towards nanotechnology

All respondents who had heard of nanotechnology were asked how they felt about it in an open response question. Just under half (46%) provided positive comments. Most commonly, comments were fairly vague, with a quarter (25%) providing responses that they thought nanotechnology was ‘positive/good/in favour of it’, followed by 7% who said it was ‘interesting’. A further 3% of comments were positive but with qualification.

Table 20: Unprompted attitudes towards nanotechnology

%

Positive comments Positive/good/in favour of it 25

It's interesting/I am interested/curious 7

I can see the value of it in certain contexts e.g. medicine/chemistry etc

4

There are lots of benefits associated with it 4

It's a breakthrough for science/new layer of knowledge/new technology

3

58


%

It's progress/innovative/the way of the future etc. 3

Very useful for society as a whole 3

It has potential/a lot of potential 3

It's versatile/flexible/has a lot of applications. 3

Exciting area 3

Involves engineering of very small particles 2

Mostly positive 2

Positive - other comments 1

Subtotal 46

Positive but with qualification

Positive - but I need more information about nanotechnology 1

As long as there are no harmful effects. 1

Has great potential as long as risks are managed 1

Subtotal 3

Negative comments We need to be cautious/take it slowly. 4

Needs more testing/research 2

Concerns about the risks/benefits versus risks 2

Nanotechnology was scary/concerning concept 2

There is a potential for it to be misused 2

Negative - due to health risks 1

More regulation is needed 1

More transparency of nanotechnology information is needed 1

Negative - other comments 1

It depends on what it will be used for/how it will be used/used correctly

1

I think it could get out of hand/could happen too quickly 1

We need to be more aware of the implications/long term effects 1

I am sceptical/suspicious/have reservations 1

I am against it/ don't like the idea 1

It could be dangerous/could have dangers associated with it 1

Subtotal 17

Neutral Ambivalent/undecided/mixed response/neutral 5

There are positives and negatives 2

Indifferent/not interested 3

I need to know more 1

It's inevitable/I just accept it 1

I don't have an attitude/opinion 6

59


%

Subtotal 18

Don't know/not sure/don't know enough about it/no opinion

Don't know enough/anything/much 22

Don't Know 6

Unsure 1

Unsure - other comments 1

Unsure - sounds too futuristic 0

Subtotal 30

No comment made 2Q6i Based on what you know about “nanotechnology”, how would you describe your attitudes towards it?Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 873; total n = 1000

Just under a third (30%) provided comments around not feeling they know enough about nanotechnology to have an opinion, while 18% provided neutral comments.

Approximately a sixth (17%) provided negative comments. These were wide ranging, but the most common category of negative responses related to ‘we need to be cautious/take it slowly’ (4%).

10.2 Attitudes relating to nanotechnology issuesRespondents generally believed that nanotechnology would improve the future quality of life in Australia and there was moderate agreement that there would be a positive impact on employment and the economy.

There was widespread agreement that product labelling should provide information about any nanotechnology used with moderate agreement that it was important to know what products contained nanotechnology. However, there was a mismatch with attitudes and behaviour with few respondents saying they always read labels of products to see if a product contains nanotechnology.

All respondents were presented with a number of statements about nanotechnology and asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed using a scale where 0 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 10 was ‘strongly agree’. Results relating to each of these statements have been commentated upon by theme below. Where possible, results have been compared to findings from the 2011 study, although it is important to note that this used a different scale (5 points from ‘agree strongly’ to ‘disagree strongly’).

10.2.1 Impact of nanotechnology on life in Australia

In relation to the impact of nanotechnology on life in Australia, there was relatively high agreement with ‘I believe nanotechnology will improve the future quality of life in Australia’ (7.0 out of 10). In 2011, a different scale was used but the majority (57%) were also in agreement with the statement.

Agreement that ‘nanotechnologies will have a positive impact on employment and the economy of Australia’ was lower (6.4 in 2012). There was similarly moderate agreement when this question was asked in 2011 (45% agreeing strongly or somewhat, and 35% neither agreeing nor disagreeing). Notably, one in five

60


respondents were not able to say what the impact would be on the economy (20%). These findings are outlined in Figure 22.

Figure 22. Attitudes towards the impact of nanotechnology

Q10i A D Do you disagree or agree that... (Impact of nanotechnology) Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 792 to 883; Total n = 1000

Consistent with other findings in relation to gender, males were more vocal in their support for technology and therefore were more likely to agree that ‘nanotechnology will improve the future quality of life in Australia’ (7.3 out of 10 vs. 6.7) and that ‘nanotechnologies will have a positive impact on employment and the economy of Australia’.

Younger respondents (16-30 year olds) were also more likely to believe that nanotechnologies would have a positive impact on the quality of life in Australia (7.5) than older respondents (6.9).

There were also differences by segments. As with other findings, Segment 1 and 2 were significantly less likely to agree with both statements. Consistent with the profile of Segment 1, ‘don’t know’ responses also tended to be higher for Segment 1. Segments 3 and 4 on the other hand, were both more likely to agree there would be positive outcomes from nanotechnology (See Table 21).

Table 21. Attitudes towards the impact of nanotechnology by segment


Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Totals

n=177 n=195 n=247 n=142 n=761

I believe nanotechnology will improve the future quality of life in Australia 6.2 6.6 7.6 7.9 7.0

61



Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Totals

n=177 n=195 n=247 n=142 n=761

Nanotechnology applications will have a positive impact on employment and the economy of Australia

6.1 6.0 6.8 7.0 6.4

Q10i A D Do you disagree or agree that... (Impact of nanotechnology)Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responsesFilter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 792 to 883; total n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

10.2.2 Labelling of products containing or using nanotechnology

As Figure 23 details, with regards to labelling there was highest agreement that ‘product labelling should provide information about any nanotechnology used’ (7.9). Results show that looking at labelling was not common with the average agreement rating with ‘I always read product labels to see if a product contains nanotechnology’ at 2.6 out of 10.

Figure 23. Attitudes on nanotechnology labelling

Q10i E J K Q11a F Do you disagree or agree that… (Labelling) Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 963 to 984; Total n = 1000

Interestingly, the low agreement with the latter statement would appear to contradict relatively high agreement that ‘It is important to me to know if the products I buy are made with nanotechnology or include some form of nanotechnology’ (6.5, similar to the 2011 result when 59% agreed with the statement). This reflects a common disjuncture between beliefs and behaviours. Most people responded to these questions in a similar way, although there was a larger distribution of responses in

62


relation to ‘only products with nanotechnology of concern should be labelled’. Almost half (46%) provided a rating of 7-10, but 34% said 0-3.

As to gender and age differences, females and those aged 51-75 felt more strongly about labelling including information about any nanotechnology used and that it was important for them to know if the products they buy include or are made from nanotechnology. However, in terms of behaviour, while still low, those aged 51-75 were likely to agree they read labels to see if products contain nanotechnology (See Table 22).

Table 22. Attitudes on nanotechnology labelling by gender and age



31-50 years

51-75 years

n=472 n=443 n=219 n=375 n=984

Product labelling should provide information about any nanotechnology used

7.5 8.2 7.2 8.0 8.2

It is important for me to know if the products I buy are made with nanotechnology or include some form of nanotechnology

6.2 7.0 6.0 6.6 7.0

Only products with nanotechnology of concern should be labelled

5.7 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.5

I always read product labels to see if a product contains nanotechnology

2.6 2.6 1.8 2.4 3.4

Q10i E J K Q11a F Do you disagree or agree that… (Labelling) Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 963 to 984; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

Differences between the segments showed that Segment 1 tended to be the most conservative with the highest agreement that labelling should provide information about any nanotechnology used and that it was important for them to know if the products they buy contain nanotechnology. Although still low, they were the most likely of the segments to say they read product labels to see if nanotechnology had been used. Across the board, Segment 4 seemed less concerned with labelling nanotechnology products. Segment 3 had a relatively high agreement that only products with nanotechnology of concern should be labelled compared to other segments.

Table 23. Attitudes on nanotechnology labelling by segment


Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=244 n=235 n=274 n=162 n=984

Product labelling should provide information about any nanotechnology used

8.8 7.6 8.0 6.6 7.9

It is important for me to know if the products I buy are made with nanotechnology or include some form of nanotechnology

7.7 6.4 6.4 5.3 6.6

63



Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=244 n=235 n=274 n=162 n=984

Only products with nanotechnology of concern should be labelled

6.3 4.8 5.9 4.8 5.5

I always read product labels to see if a product contains nanotechnology

3.1 2.6 2.5 1.9 2.6

Q10i E J K Q11a F Do you disagree or agree that… (Labelling) (Average) Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 963 to 984; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude “don’t know” responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

10.3 Examination of concerns about nanotechnology

As seen in Section 10.1.4 relating to unprompted attitudes towards nanotechnology, comments were largely positive. As such, there was only moderate agreement to the statements related to specific concerns. Respondents were most likely to agree that because nanotechnology was so new, that there might be problems for public safety. There was moderate agreement with being concerned about the unexpected risks of nanotechnology. Workplace safety was the one area where respondents were least sure about. Overall concerns tended to be greater for female respondents, those who spoke a language other than English at home and Segment 1 respondents.

Respondents were asked a series of statements related to common concerns about nanotechnology. As seen in Figure 24 , agreement was highest with the statement: ‘because nanotechnology is so new, there might be problems for public safety’ (6.6 out of 10) and ‘I am concerned about the unexpected risks involved in the use of nanotechnology’ (6.2 out of 10). In comparison, in 2011 50% were in agreement with the latter statement.

Agreement was low with ‘the new processes of nanotechnology may cause problems for worker safety’ (5.5 out of 10). However, close to a third (29%) of all respondents were not able to say whether they agreed or disagreed to this statement.

Agreement was lowest for ‘I have concerns about nanotechnology’ (5.1) – although close to one in three (30%) provided a rating of 0-3 for the latter measure.

64


Figure 24. Statements related to concerns about nanotechnology

Q10i F G H & Q11a B C G Do you disagree or agree that... (Concerns) Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 710 to 958; Total n = 1000

As to demographic differences, females were more likely to have higher levels of agreement to all the statements relating to concerns about nanotechnology (See Table 24).

Younger respondents also tended to have lower levels of concern particularly when it came to concerns that nanotechnology is so new that there might be problems for public safety, the health and safety risks of nanotechnology, new processes of nanotechnology causing problems for worker safety, and generally having concerns related to nanotechnology.

Table 24. Statements related to concerns about nanotechnology by gender and age



31-50 years

51-75 years

n=372 n=297 n=176 n=264 n=229

Because nanotechnology is so new, there might be problems for public safety

6.2 7.0 6.3 6.6 6.8

I am concerned about the unexpected risks involved in the use of nanotechnology

5.7 6.7 6.2 6.1 6.4

I am concerned about the health and safety risks of nanotechnology

5.5 6.5 5.7 6.1 6.3

I am concerned about the environmental risks of nanotechnology

5.4 6.5 6.0 5.9 6.0

65




31-50 years

51-75 years

n=372 n=297 n=176 n=264 n=229

The new processes of nanotechnology may cause problems for worker safety

5.1 5.8 5.1 5.3 5.8

I have concerns about nanotechnology 4.5 5.6 4.4 5.0 5.7Q10i F G H & Q11a B C G Do you disagree or agree that... (Concerns) (Average) Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 710 to 958; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude don’t know responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

As shown in Table 25, those who were employed were significantly less likely to be concerned with the environmental risks of nanotechnology (5.7 out of 10). They were also less likely than those who were not employed to agree with that ‘new processes of nanotechnology may cause problems for worker safety’ (5.2 out of 10).

Like females, those who spoke a language other than English at home were significantly more likely to agree to all statements relating to concerns about nanotechnology.

Table 25. Statements related to concerns about nanotechnology by employment and language spoken at home

Average out of 10 Employment status Language other than English at

home

Empl

oyed

(F

T/PT

/Sel

f)

Reti

red

or

Pens

ione

r

Hom

e du

ties

Stud

ent

Une

mpl

oyed

Yes

No

n=394 n=112 n=27 n=110 n=19 n=92 n=577


6.4 6.9 7.3 6.5 6.5 7.1 6.5


6.1 6.4 6.8 6.3 6.0 6.8 6.1


5.9 6.2 6.7 6.0 6.0 6.8 5.9


5.7 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.3 6.8 5.8


5.2 6.0 5.6 5.4 5.7 6.1 5.3

66


Average out of 10 Employment status Language other than English at

home

Empl

oyed

(F

T/PT

/Sel

f)

Reti

red

or

Pens

ione

r

Hom

e du

ties

Stud

ent

Une

mpl

oyed

Yes

No

n=394 n=112 n=27 n=110 n=19 n=92 n=577

I have concerns about nanotechnology

4.9 5.9 5.2 4.7 5.1 5.5 5.0

Q10i F G H & Q11a B C G Do you disagree or agree that... (Concerns) (Average) Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 710 to 958; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude don’t know responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

As to the segments, Segment 1 was the most likely to be concerned about nanotechnology in general, with higher agreement to all statements. Segment 4, the segment with the most positive attitude towards the science and technology, were generally less concerned. Segment 1 were significantly less likely than all the other segments combined to be concerned about the environmental risks (5.7) or to agree they had concerns about nanotechnology (4.8 out of 10).

Table 26. Statements related to concerns about nanotechnology by segment


Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=175 n=160 n=200 n=134 n=710


7.7 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.6


7.5 6.3 6.1 4.4 6.2


7.4 5.9 6.1 4.2 6.0


7.3 6.1 5.7 4.2 6.0


6.5 5.3 5.4 4.0 5.4

I have concerns about nanotechnology 6.6 5.2 4.8 3.2 5.1Q10i F G H & Q11a B C G Do you disagree or agree that... (Concerns) (Average) by SegmentFilter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 710 to 958; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude don’t know responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

67


10.4 Attitudes towards specific applications of nanotechnology

As seen in Section 9.3, awareness of specific applications was not high although most had heard of at least one of the applications listed. Among those who were aware of the applications, respondents were least likely to have heard positive things about using nanoparticles to improve the nutritional qualities of food, using nanoparticles in sunscreen and cosmetics and using nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and freshness.

Medical applications or environmental applications of nanotechnology were most likely to be viewed as a positive use of nanotechnology.

Those who were aware of any of the specific applications of nanotechnology detailed in Figure 14 were asked if what they had heard about these applications was positive, negative or both.

As Figure 25 shows, respondents were most likely to have heard exclusively positive things about ‘new solar panels using nanotechnology’ (82% positive), followed by ‘'Water filtration through nanosized filters’ (77%) and 'carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing’ (75%).

The majority had also heard positive things about 'new drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin’ (73%), 'using nano silver which provides anti-bacterial surfaces in consumer products such as fridges and washing machine’ (70%) and ‘Nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and freshness’ (57%).

Figure 25. Attitudes towards familiar applications of nanotechnology

Q8b Has what you heard about it been positive, negative or neither, or both? Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 166 to 570; Total n = 1000

68


While fewer had heard exclusively positive things about ‘the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics’ (43%) only 17% said what they heard was negative and 10% said ‘neither positive nor negative’, 22% ‘both positive and negative’ and 8% unsure.

A similar distribution was seen in relation to ‘using nanoparticles to improve nutritional qualities of food’ (42% ‘positive’, 17% ‘negative’, 11% ‘neither positive or negative’ 16% ‘both positive and negative’ and 14% ‘unsure).

There has been some change in the composition of the types of things people had heard about the various applications of nanotechnology compared to 2011. While in all cases, there was no change in positive things people had heard about the applications, there tended to be an increase in those who were unsure of what they had heard about it. Other notable differences since the last survey included:

For ‘carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing’ there was a significant increase in the positive things people had heard (62% to 73%) – although awareness overall was low.

‘the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and cosmetics’, had a decrease in those who had heard exclusively negative things (27% down to 18%) or things that were neither positive nor negative (25% down to 11%) and an increase in those who had heard both positive and negative points (9% up to 21%).

For ‘new drug delivery systems through a patch on your skin’, there was a decrease in neither positive or negative things (form 19% to 9%), and an increase in both positive and negative (1% to 10%).

For ‘nanoparticles in food packaging to monitor food quality and freshness’, there was also a decrease in neither (29% to 13%) but a substantial increase in unsure (0% to 11%)

For ‘using nano silver which provides anti-bacterial surfaces in consumer products such as fridges and washing machine’, there was a significant decrease in the negative ‘press’ people had heard (11% to 4%) and also a decrease in neither (24% to 11%).

Respondents were also asked whether they thought a range of other applications were a positive or negative use of nanotechnology using a 0-10 scale where 0 is an extremely negative use and 10 is an extremely positive use. As Figure 26 shows, for most of the applications between a third and half of respondents were unable to say if they were positive or negative uses. For ‘miniaturised and undetectable surveillance devices’, this was close to eight in ten respondents. Among those who were able to say, the most positive ratings were reported in relation to applications that have clear environmental or health benefits, including:

'Implants for diabetics that monitor sugar levels and deliver insulin as required’ (a mean support rating of 8.6);

'Technology that disassembles and breaks down urban waste and garbage’ (8.4)

'Machines that exist in the blood stream to clear arterial clots or cancer cells’ (8.4); and

'Filters that can control pollutants from entering the environment’ (8.3).

69


Figure 26. Attitudes towards other applications of nanotechnology

Q9i What degree do you feel that it is a negative or a positive use of nanotechnology? Filter: 2012 only AND CATI only; Weighted to population; Base n = from 153 to 607; Total n = 1000

Responses were far more divided in relation to:

'Socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell less’ (a mean of 6.0);

'Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods’ ( a mean of 5.8); and

'Miniaturised and undetectable surveillance devices’ (a mean of 4.8).

A different scale was used for these questions in 2011. Nevertheless, support for uses of nanotechnology were in a roughly similar order, with technology that breaks down urban waste (89% feeling positive), pollutant controlling filters (88%) and implants for diabetics prompting the highest levels of support (91%). The use of nanoparticles in food (34% positive) and miniaturised surveillance devices (35%) achieved the lowest levels of support.

Notably, there were some differences by location with Victorians less likely to say the most of the applications were positive uses of nanotechnology compared to other Australians. Queenslanders and ACT residents were relatively more supportive of bandages using nano silver. Queensland residents were also more likely to support miniaturised surveillance systems – although support across the board was moderate (Table 27).

70


Table 27. Attitudes towards other applications of nanotechnology by state

Average out of 10 NSW VIC QLD

SA WA TAS ACT NT Total

Implants for diabetics that monitor sugar levels and deliver insulin as required

8.7 8.4 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.5 9.1 7.2 8.6

Machines that exist in the blood stream to clear arterial clots or cancer cells

8.6 8.2 8.6 8.1 8.8 8.8 9.4 7.2 8.4

Technology that disassembles and breaks down urban waste and garbage

8.4 8.2 8.6 8.3 8.8 8.3 9.0 8.0 8.4

Filters that can control pollutants from entering the environment

8.5 7.9 8.5 8.3 8.5 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.3

Bandages impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make them sterile for a longer time

8.0 7.8 8.3 7.9 8.1 7.9 8.9 5.7 8.0

Sunscreen lotions using nanotechnology to give lotion invisibility and higher sun protection

7.6 6.9 7.7 7.1 7.5 7.9 7.0 5.8 7.4

Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food spoilage

7.1 6.6 7.2 6.7 7.3 6.5 7.4 6.4 7.0

Socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell less

6.1 5.6 6.4 5.9 5.9 6.4 7.2 6.0 6.0

Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods

6.0 5.5 6.2 5.5 6.1 5.2 5.2 6.1 5.8

Miniaturised and undetectable surveillance devices

5.1 3.9 5.8 5.6 4.9 6.4 5.1 3.3 4.8

Q9i What degree do you feel that it is a negative or a positive use of nanotechnology? (average) Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 153 to 607; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude don’t know responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

A number of differences by gender were observed, with males significantly more supportive of a number of applications than females, including:

'Filters that can control pollutants from entering the environment’ (a mean support rating of 8.5 among males compared to 8.2 among females);

'Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food spoilage’ (7.3 compared to 6.6); and

'Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods’ (6.1 compared to 5.5).

In terms of age, those aged 51-75 were more supportive than those aged 31-50 of two health applications: ‘machines that exist in the blood stream to clear arterial clots or cancer cells’ (8.7 compared to 8.2) and 'bandages impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make them sterile for a longer time’ (8.3 compared to 7.7).

71


Meanwhile, those aged 16-30 were more accepting of several applications including being more supportive than all other age groups of:

'sunscreen lotions using nanotechnology to give lotion invisibility and higher sun protection’ (7.9 compared to 7.2 among both other groups), and

'socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell less’ (6.4 compared to 5.9 among both other groups).

Younger respondents (16-30 year olds) were also more supportive than 31-50 year-olds of

‘Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food spoilage’ (7.3 compared to 6.5) and

‘Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods’ (6.7 compared to 5.2).

Differences by employment status generally reflected many of the differences by age.

Those who spoke a language other than English were more likely to be supportive of 'Socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell less’.

As to segment differences, as would be expected, Segment 4 was more likely to think the applications were positive uses of nanotechnology. Support tended to be lowest for Segment 2 (as opposed to Segment 1). The applications where there was greatest variance in terms of whether it was felt that the application was a positive use of nanotechnology were:

Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food spoilage (Segment 4 highest – average of 7.8 out of 10; Segment 1 lowest - 6.2 out of 10).

Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods (Segment 3 highest - 6.5 out of 10; Segment 1 lowest – 5.1 out of 10).

Table 28. Attitudes towards other applications of nanotechnology by segment


Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

Implants for diabetics that monitor sugar levels and deliver insulin as required

8.6 8.1 8.7 8.9 8.6

Machines that exist in the blood stream to clear arterial clots or cancer cells

8.2 7.9 8.9 8.8 8.4

Technology that disassembles and breaks down urban waste and garbage

8.4 8.0 8.5 9.0 8.4

Filters that can control pollutants from entering the environment

8.0 7.9 8.6 9.0 8.3

Bandages impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make them sterile for a longer time

7.7 7.7 8.2 8.8 8.0

72



Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

Sunscreen lotions using nanotechnology to give lotion invisibility and higher sun protection

7.5 6.7 7.7 7.6 7.4

Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food spoilage

6.2 6.8 7.3 7.8 7.0

Socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell less

5.8 5.6 6.3 6.4 6.0

Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods

5.1 5.4 6.5 6.3 5.8

Miniaturised and undetectable surveillance devices

5.1 4.3 5.3 4.1 4.8

Q9i What degree do you feel that it is a negative or a positive use of nanotechnology? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 153 to 607; total n = 1000

Section 11 Attitudes towards regulatory bodies and key players

Respondents were generally unsure whether regulation and safeguards were keeping up with the pace of development and for the most part felt that the public was not being kept well informed about nanotechnology.

It is not surprising that the organisations most likely to be trusted to tell about the risks and benefits were science institutes and organisations such CSIRO and universities, followed by scientists. Government agencies and regulators rounded out the top three.

As to the perceptions of the level of expertise. Again science institutes and scientist were the top of the list with a noticeable gap between the top two and other organisations.

Testing of all products and regulating labels of products using nanotechnology were deemed the most important activities that government should allocate budget towards, although all tasks with the exception of providing funding to private enterprises to develop nanotechnology.

11.1 Perceptions of regulatory bodies Overall there was low agreement that ‘the general public is being kept well informed about nanotechnology’, with over half (55%) of respondents providing responses at the bottom end of the scale (0-3), making an average agreement rating of 3.4.

Most respondents were fairly ambivalent towards the statement ‘nanotechnology regulation and safeguards are keeping up with the development of nanotechnology’, with the majority providing responses of 4-6, resulting in an average rating of 5.1. Notably, close to half of respondents were not able to say whether they agreed or disagreed with this statement which suggests there is a low awareness of what regulations and safeguards there are in the first place. (See Figure 27).

73


Figure 27. Attitudinal statements regulation

Q11a D E To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements (Regulation) (Average) by SegmentFilter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 528 to 912; total n = 1000

As to demographic differences - males were slightly but significantly more likely to think the public was well informed (3.5 out of 10 vs. 3.2 for females). Those who spoke languages other than English were also more likely to agree that safeguards kept up with developments in technology than those who only spoke English (5.8 vs. 4.9).

Looking at differences between the segments, Segment 2 were least likely to agree that regulation and safeguards were keeping up with developments with Segment 3 the most likely to think it was keeping up with the pace of change. It is perhaps not surprising that Segment 1, with the lowest level of awareness of nanotechnology, were the least likely to agree that the public was being kept well informed about nanotechnology.

Although scores were low across the board, Segment 4 was the most likely to think the public was being well informed. However, it should be noted that Segment 4 were more likely than other segments to have a wide range of information sources if they were to look for information on emerging technologies such as nanotechnology (See Section 12) so it is likely they are more aware of where to access the information that is being provided by the government than other segments.

74


Table 29. Attitudinal statements about nanotechnology – regulation by segment


Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n = 138 n = 128 n = 150 n = 94 n = 528

Nanotechnology regulation and safeguards are keeping up with the development of nanotechnology

5.4 4.5 5.4 5.0 5.1

The general public is being kept well informed about nanotechnology 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.4

Q11a D E To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements (Regulation) (Average) by SegmentFilter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 528 to 912; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude don’t know responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

11.2 Trust in key groupsThe supplementary online survey were asked the degree to which respondents trusted what a range of groups said about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology on a scale where 0 is do not trust at all and 10 is trust completely. Results are detailed in Figure 28.

Figure 28. Trust in key groups

Q19i (Online) How much trust do you place on what the following groups tell you about the risks and benefits of nanotechnologyFilter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 882 to 932; total n = 1000

75


Levels of trust were not extremely high for any of the organisations, but was highest in relation to ‘Science institutes such as CSIRO and universities’ (average rating of 7.1 out of 10, with 67% providing a rating of 7-10), followed by ‘scientists’ (6.6 out of 10).

Trust in all other organisations was more dispersed, with respondents more likely to provide moderate ratings of 4-6 in relation to:

‘Government agencies or regulators’ (an average rating of 5.4);

‘Non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups’ (5.3);

‘Industry associations’ (4.6); and

‘Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products’ (4.2).

Levels of trust were lowest in relation to the ‘mass media’ (3.5 out of 10).

The same question was asked in 2011 but a different scale was used and there has been some change in the order of organisations in terms of trust. While science institutes followed by ‘scientists’ were the most trusted in 2011, ‘business leaders’ followed by ‘manufactures and distributors of consumer products’ were the least trusted.

The order of the organisations from most trusted for delivering information about nanotechnology to least trusted did not generally vary by demographics, but there were some significant differences in terms of individual levels of trust for several organisations.

In regards to gender, males were more trusting on average than females of many organisations, specifically:

‘Science Institutes and organisations’ (a mean trust rating of 7.3 compared to 6.9);

‘Industry associations’ (4.8 compared to 4.3);

‘Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products’ (4.5 compared to 3.8); and

'Mass media’ (3.8 compared to 3.3)

Given that males are more supportive of nanotechnology in general than females (see Figure 15, this is not a surprising finding.

Trust also appeared to decrease with age, in line with decreasing support for nanotechnology in general.

Those aged 51-75 were less likely to trust:

'Non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups’ (4.9 compared to 5.5 among 16-30 year-olds and 5.4 among 31-50 year-olds);

'Industry associations’ (4.2 compared to 5.0 out of 10 among 16-30 year-olds);

76


'Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products’ (3.9 compared to 4.5 among 16-30 year-olds); and

'Mass media’ (3.1 compared to 3.7 among 31-50 year-olds).

Differences by employment status generally reflected differences by age, with the currently employed more trusting of a range of sources. However, those who were retired or pensioners were more trusting of all other groups in relation to ‘science institutes’ (mean of 7.5).

Those with children under 10 at home were less trusting of ‘science institutes’ (6.8) but more trusting of the ‘mass media’ (3.8).

Respondents who spoke a language other than English were more trusting of ‘non-government organisations and community advocacy groups’ (5.7 compared to 5.2) and the ‘mass media’ (4.5 compared to 3.4).

There were no significant differences by location.

Again while the order of the organisations did not differ greatly, the segment results demonstrate the level of cynicism that is held by Segment 2. Ratings of trust tended to be lowest for this segment for all the organisations. Trust in science institutes and scientists were also relatively lower for Segment 1 than for the two ‘pro science’ segments. Unlike Segment 3 and 4, for Segments 1 and 2, non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups came third in the list of organisations.

Notably, although the trust was low for mass media as a source of information, Segment 3 were the most likely of the four segments to trust in what the mass media told them of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology.

On the other hand, trust Government agencies or regulators was highest amongst Segment 4 respondents.

Table 30. Trust in key groups by segment


Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=215 n=234 n=247 n=154 n=850

Science Institutes and organisations such as CSIRO and universities

6.6 6.6 7.5 7.9 7.1

Scientists 6.2 6.2 7.0 7.4 6.6

Government agencies or regulators 5.2 4.9 5.6 6.2 5.4

Non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups

5.5 5.1 5.3 5.1 5.3

Industry associations 4.5 4.3 4.8 4.8 4.6

Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products

4.3 3.8 4.3 4.4 4.1

Mass media 3.9 3.2 3.7 3.2 3.5Q19i (Online) How much trust do you place on what the following groups tell you about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology (Average) by Segment

77


Filter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 875 to 925; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude don’t know responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

11.3 Perceptions of expertise of key groupsThe supplementary online survey respondents were also asked the extent to which they thought the same groups had the expertise necessary to talk about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Results are outlined in Figure 29.

Overall, ‘science institutes’ were seen to have the most expertise, followed by ‘scientists’ (7.6 and 7.4 respectively). Respondents were more moderate in their agreement that ‘government agencies or regulators’ (5.5) and NGOs and community advocacy groups (5.0) had the expertise. Respondents were more likely to provide low agreement ratings (between 0-3) than high (7-10) in relation to ‘industry associations’ (average of 4.9) and ‘manufactures and distributors of consumer products’ (5.0).

The majority (59%) provided low agreement ratings (0-3) that ‘mass media’ has the expertise to talk about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology’, resulting in an average agreement rating of 3.0.

Figure 29. Perceptions of expertise of key groups

Q19ii (Online) To what extent would you say that the following groups have the expertise to tell you about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology? Filter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 878 to 920; total n = 1000

In terms of gender, males were significantly more likely to agree that ‘manufactures and distributors of consumer products’ (4.8 compared to 4.3) and the ‘mass media’ (3.2 compared to 2.8) have the relevant expertise.

78


Age also influenced agreement that the groups have the expertise to talk about nanotechnology, with the oldest group (51-75 years of age) less likely to agree in relation to:

‘NGOs and community advocacy groups’ (4.7 compared to an average of 5.0);

‘Industry associations’ (4.5 compared to 5.3 among 16-30 year-olds);

‘Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products’ (4.3 compared to 4.7 among both other age groups; and

‘Mass media’ (2.7 compared to an average of 3.0).

A similar pattern was seen in relation to employment status, with the employed more likely to agree that most organisations have the expertise to talk about nanotechnology.

In terms of location, respondents in NSW were less likely to agree that ‘scientists’ had the expertise than those in other states (7.2 compared to 7.8) and those in SA were less likely than those in other states to agree that science institutes had the expertise (7.0 compared to 7.6).

As with levels of trust, Segment 2 had the lowest opinion of the level of expertise from all organisations of the four segments. Segment 1’s opinion of the level of expertise from science institutes and scientists was relatively lower than the other segments. However, their opinion of NGOs was highest of the segments. They were also had the highest opinion of the level of expertise held the in the media which would suggest, if any group was to listen to good or bad news stories on nanotechnology, that Segment 1 would be the most likely to be swayed by these stories.

As would be expected for both Segment 3 and 4, opinions of the levels of expertise held by science Institutes, scientists, and government agencies or regulators were all significantly higher than for the other two segments.

Table 31. Expertise of key groups


Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=216 n=231 n=252 n=150 n=849

Science Institutes and organisations such as CSIRO and universities

7.2 7.0 7.9 8.4 7.6

Scientists 7.1 7.1 7.7 8.1 7.5

Government agencies or regulators 5.6 4.9 5.8 5.9 5.5

Non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups

5.3 4.8 5.1 4.8 5.0

Industry associations 4.9 4.6 5.1 5.0 4.9

Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products

4.7 4.3 4.7 4.5 4.5

Mass media 3.7 2.7 3.1 2.2 3.0Q19ii (Online) To what extent would you say that the following groups have the expertise to tell you about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology (Average) by Segment

79


Filter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 870 to 912

11.4 Importance of allocating budget resources to nanotechnology development and regulation

Supplementary online respondents were asked how important they believed it was that government agencies allocated budget resources to different forms of nanotechnology regulation and development activities on a scale where 0 was ‘not important at all’ and 10 was ‘critical’. Results can be seen in Figure 30.

Figure 30. Importance of allocating budget resources to nanotechnology development and regulation

Q17i How important do you believe it is that government agencies allocate budget resources to the following…? Please use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is not important at all and 10 is critical.

Support was high for almost all forms of regulation and development, with the exception of ‘provide funding to private enterprises to develop nanotechnology’ (a mean support rating of 5.9). The three forms of investment seen as most important were all forms of regulation, specifically:

‘Require testing of all products using nanotechnology’ (7.9);

‘Regulate labelling of products using nanotechnology’ (7.7); and

‘Monitor nanotechnology developments’ (7.7).

Results seen in 2011 were relatively similar, with high support for all forms of investment except providing funding to private enterprises, although a different scale was used. There was some movement in the top three areas of investment, with ‘provide regular information to the general public about nanotechnology’, ‘monitor

80


nanotechnology developments’ and ‘require testing of all nanoproducts for safety’ the most important, respectively, in 2011.

There were no significant differences by gender. However, in terms of age, 51-75 year-olds rated all forms of investment in nanotechnology regulation and development significantly higher than those aged 16-30.

A similar result was seen in terms of employment status, with those who were retired or pensioners rating investment in almost all forms as significantly more important than all others, and those who were employed rating almost all forms as significantly less important (with the exception of providing funding to public institutions). Further, those engaged in ‘home duties’ rated the importance of investment in regulating labelling and providing regular information to the general public higher than all other groups (8.1 compared to an average of 7.6 and 8.0 compared to 7.5 respectively).

Those without children under 10 at home rated investment in two forms of regulation significantly higher than those with: ‘require testing of all products using nanotechnology’ (8.0 compared to 7.7) and ‘monitor nanotechnology developments’ (7.8 compared to 7.4).

Further, those who spoke a language other than English at home rated investment in ‘require testing of all products using nanotechnology’ (7.4 compared to 8.0), ‘monitor nanotechnology developments’ (7.3 compared to 7.8) and ‘provide regular information to the general public about nanotechnology’ (7.2 compared to 7.7) significantly lower than those who did not speak a language other than English at home.

As to location, those living outside capital cities rated the importance of investment in monitoring products for the presence of nanoparticles significantly higher than those who lived in capital cities (7.6 compared to 7.2). Those residing in Victoria also saw a number of investment priorities as more important than all others, specifically requiring testing (8.2 compared to an average of 7.8), regulating labelling (7.9 compared to an average of 7.6) and regulating development (7.7 compared to an average of 7.3).

Not surprisingly, given the results related to trust, when looking at the segment breakdown, we find that Segment 2 were least favourable towards allocating budget to all tasks relative to the other segments. For most of the activities listed, it was Segment 3 that provided the highest support for allocating towards the tasks. Segment 4, on the other hand, were most likely of the segments to be favour of the government allocating budget towards providing funding to public institutions, like universities, to research nanotechnology; to monitoring nanotechnology developments and providing funding to private enterprises to develop nanotechnology. Given their support and interest in technological advancement, this is not a surprising result.

Table 32: Importance of allocating budget resources to nanotechnology development and regulation by segment


Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=214 n=228 n=240 n=143 n=825

Require testing of all products using nanotechnology

7.9 7.2 8.4 8.2 7.9

81



Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n=214 n=228 n=240 n=143 n=825

Monitor nanotechnology developments 7.6 7.1 8.1 8.2 7.7

Regulate labelling of products using nanotechnology

7.7 7.2 8.1 7.7 7.7

Provide regular information to the general public about nanotechnology

7.8 7.0 8.0 7.6 7.6

Provide funding to public institutions, like universities, to research nanotechnology

7.2 6.7 8.0 8.3 7.5

Regulate the development of nanotechnology

7.6 6.8 7.9 7.3 7.4

Monitor products for the presence of nanoparticles

7.4 6.9 7.8 7.2 7.4

Provide funding to private enterprises to develop nanotechnology

5.9 5.2 6.4 6.4 5.9

Q17i (Online) How important do you believe it is that government agencies allocate budget resources to the following (Average) Filter: Online only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 872 to 915; total n = 1000Note: Means exclude don’t know responsesIndicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

Section 12 Seeking information about new technologies

While it was just as likely as unlikely that respondents would have looked for information about new technologies before the survey, it seems that asking questions about nanotechnology had piqued respondents’ interest with an increase in reported likelihood to seek information compared to before doing the survey.

The internet was by far the most popular source of information on new technologies. Among those who would use the internet, they were most likely conduct a Google search. Segment 4 respondents, those who were most supportive of scientific advances, were notably more likely to cast a wide net to seek information.

All respondents in the main telephone survey were asked what the likelihood was that they would have sought information about new technologies such as nanotechnology, before they had completed the survey. As shown in Figure 31, results were varied. A similar proportion said that it was unlikely (46%, including 27% ‘not likely at all’ and 19% ‘somewhat likely’) and likely they would have sought information about nanotechnology before the survey (42% including 27% ‘somewhat likely’ and 15% ‘very likely’).

82


Figure 31. Likelihood of seeking information before and after survey

Q20i What is the likelihood that you would have sought information about new technologies such as nanotechnology prior to today? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 964 to 981; total n = 1000

Respondents were also asked what the likelihood was that they would seek information about new technologies such as nanotechnology in the future. Also outlined in Figure 31, the proportion saying they would be likely to seek information after the survey was almost double the proportion who said it was likely they would have done so in the past (80% compared to 42%) – suggesting that interest had been piqued by the completing survey.

In relation to gender, females were significantly more likely to say that they were ‘not likely at all’ (32% compared to 22%) and ‘somewhat unlikely’ (22% compared to 16%) to have sought information than males prior to the survey. There was no difference in regards to gender on this measure in relation to future intentions.

When the data is analysed by age it emerges that older people were also significantly more unlikely to have sought information compared to other age groups (52% unlikely among 51-75 year-olds compared, to 39% among 16-30 year-olds). As to future intentions, there was some older respondents (51-75) were still more likely say they would be unlikely to do so and those aged 31-50 less likely to say they would be would not seek information (16% compared to 10%).

Employment status was also correlated with likelihood of having sought information in the past, with those who were employed significantly more likely to have done so, while those who were retirees/pensioners or responsible for ‘home duties’ less likely (46% compared to 34% and 22%, respectively) to have sought information.

83


Further, those who spoke a language other than English at home were significantly more likely to say ‘very likely’ than those who did not (22% compared to 14%).

Those who lived in a capital city were also significantly more likely to say they were likely to have sought information than those living in non-capital cities (45% compared to 38%).

There were clear differences in terms of the likelihood of seeking information according for each segment. As would be expected, the likelihood to have sought information about was greatest for Segment 4 for both before and after the survey. It was significantly lower for Segment 1. All segments reported an increased interest to varying degrees (See Table 33).

Table 33. Likelihood of seeking information before and after survey – by segment

Column % Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4

n=272 n=256 n=296 n=176

Prior to the survey

Somewhat likely/Very likely 30 42 40 67

Following the survey

Somewhat likely/Very likely 77 78 81 86Q20i What is the likelihood that you would have sought information about new technologies such as nanotechnology prior to today? Q20ii What is the likelihood that you would seek information about new technologies such as nanotechnology in the future? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = from 964 to 981; total n = 1000

Potential sources of informationThose who said it was somewhat or very likely that they would have sought out information about new technologies (including nanotechnologies) in the past or future were asked, unprompted, where they would go to look for this information. Multiple responses were permitted. As illustrated in Figure 32, the vast majority said they would seek information by ‘searching the internet’ (90%). Around one-in-ten would get their information from ‘press/newspapers’ (14%), ‘science magazines’ (11%), word of mouth (10%), television (9%) and ‘books’ (9%).

Figure 32. Potential sources of information

%

Searching the internet 90

Press/newspapers 14

Science magazines 11

Word of mouth 10

Television 9

Books 9

84


%

Literature/academic journals/libraries 6

Don’t know/Can’t say 5

Government websites 3

Radio 3

Scientists presenting information on nanotechnology 2

University/university website 2

Literature/academic journals/libraries 2

Government agencies or regulators 1

Manufacturers or product distributors and their nanotechnology information 1

Teachers/lecturers/school 1

Businesses 1

Social networking sites i.e. Twitter, Facebook, blogs 1

Science museums and Science Centres 1

Public displays or events that allow people to discuss nanotechnology and ask questions 1

Product information labels 1

Other 14Q20a and b When you want to find out more about new developments such as nanotechnology, where would you go to look for information? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 812; total n = 1000

There were some gender differences with females more likely to mention word of mouth (13%) and television (11%) compared to males (6% and 7% respectively).

Not surprisingly, those aged 16-30 were most likely to list searching the internet (94% compared to 85% of 51-75 year olds). Older respondents were also more likely to rely on press and newspapers (20%) and television (15%) as sources.

As to differences by segment, while the internet was the main source for all, those who were members of Segment 4 were much more likely to have listed science magazines as a source (21%). Segment 1, with their relatively lower awareness, were more likely than other segments to rely on television for information (13%).

Internet searches

Those respondents who said they would search the internet to find information about new developments such as nanotechnology were asked what sites they would use, and multiple responses were permitted, with results illustrated in Figure 33.

‘General Google search’ was by far the most common response, mentioned by over four fifths (81%) of respondents. Around a fifth (19%) mentioned ‘other specific sights’ (e.g. yahoo), while 14% said ‘science websites’ and one in ten (11%) said ‘Wikipedia’.

85


Figure 33. Internet sources

Q21 If you search the internet, what sites would you most use to find information about nanotechnology? Filter: CATI only AND 2012 only AND Likely to look up info before survey or in the future; Weighted to population; base n = 723

Younger respondents were more likely to say they would look on ‘Wikipedia’ (18% compared to the average of 8%), while older respondents were more likely to say ‘other specific sites’ (24% compared to an average of (17%). Findings by employment status also reflected age.

Those living outside of capital cities were more likely than those in capital cities to say they would look for information on ‘other specific sights’ (26% compared to 17%), while those in Victoria were more likely to do a Google search (88% compared to 79%) and those in NSW were more likely to look on government websites (13% compared to 6%).

The analysis by segments showed that the segment with the most reported knowledge of nanotechnology, Segment 4, was less likely to say they would conduct a ‘Google search’ and were more likely to list other specific sites, as well as science websites, Wikipedia, government and university websites than other segments (See Table 34).

86


Table 34. Internet sources by segment

Column % Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Segment 4

Total

n =181 n =185 n =220 n =127 n =713

General Google search 83 81 85 71 81

Other specific sites 16 19 17 31 19

Science websites 9 13 12 21 14

Wikipedia 5 13 11 16 11

Government websites 6 8 7 13 8

University websites 0 3 5 7 4

News media sites 1 2 2 7 3

CSIRO website 1 2 3 6 3

Academic article search engine 1 2 3 4 2

You tube 1 2 1 0 1

As many sites as possible 2 0 1 1 1

NGO and Community advocacy websites

1 2 0 2 1

Regulator websites 2 1 0 1 1

Medical sites 1 0 0 1 1

Would not search the internet 1 0 0 1 1

Don't know/unsure 3 0 1 0 1

Other 3 3 1 1 2Q21 If you search the internet, what sites would you most use to find information about nanotechnology? by SegmentFilter: CATI only AND 2012 only; Weighted to population; base n = 713; total n = 1000Indicates statistically significant difference compared to those not in that category

Section 13 Implications of the research While awareness of nanotechnology is high, there are relatively low levels of

underpinning knowledge. This lack of knowledge does not seem to have translated into negative sentiment in the same was as has been seen for other emerging technologies (for example genetically modified foods).

In terms of information channels that may influence opinion of emerging technology, it is interesting to note the particularly low ratings of mass media agencies.

Attitudes toward nanotechnology are generally positive, but there is also some desire for additional information and appropriate product labelling. This stated desire should be viewed in the context that a few survey participants say they always read product labelling or have sought information on enabling technologies in the past.

87


As segmentation analysis clearly shows, distinct attitudinal groupings exist within the community each with differing appetites for information about science and technology, and nanotechnology in particular. Consideration should be given to developing a deeper understanding of these segments, their underlying motivations, and the triggers that might move an individual to a higher level of engagement.

Segment 4 appears to be made up of well informed advocates for science and technology and specific biotechnological applications.

Males are consistently more positive with regard to biotechnology and specific applications. While more research is required to understand the reasons for this consideration should be given to developing gender tailored communication and engagement strategies to reach women.

AppendicesDemographicsTelephone survey respondents

Please note the following results are unweighted

Q23i Age% n

16-17 years old 5 50

18 – 20 years 7 66

21 – 30 years 12 120

31 – 40 years 20 201

41 – 50 years 20 202

51 – 60 years 14 137

61 – 70 years 16 164

71 – 75 years 6 60

Total 100 1000

SQ1 Location% n

Sydney 21 209

Other New South Wales 11 112

Melbourne 19 189

Other Victoria 6 61

Brisbane 11 105

Other Queensland 10 96

Adelaide 6 56

Other South Australia 2 18

88


% n

Perth 8 81

Other WA 2 24

Hobart 1 6

Other Tasmania 2 17

Canberra / ACT 2 17

Darwin 0 3

Other Northern Territory 1 6

Capital city vs. non-capital city% n

Capital city 67 666

Non capital city 33 334

Total 100 1000

Q28i State% n

NSW 32 321

VIC 25 250

QLD 20 201

SA 7 74

WA 11 105

TAS 2 23

ACT 2 17

NT 1 9

Total 100 1000

Q28 Gender% n

Male 51 512

Female 49 488

Total 100 1000

SQ4 Do you have a landline phone at home that you use for phone calls (not just the internet)?

% n

Landline at home 94 944

Mobile only household 6 56

Total 100 1000

89


Q24 Employment status% n

Employed full time 44 439

Employed part time 13 129


Home duties 5 48

School or secondary student 5 51

TAFE or university student 9 89

Unemployed 3 26

Other 1 6

Refused 1 5

Self employed 2 21

Subtotal - Employed 59 589

Subtotal - Student 14 140

Total 100 1000

Q25 Have you undertaken a science subject at university or TAFE; or have links to science through friends or through your work?

% n

High school/senior secondary school only 8 83

TAFE studies 5 45

University - undergraduate 22 223

University – post graduate 8 80

Friends involved in science and technology 30 303

Work in science and technology field 18 184

None – no involvement in science 40 398

Subtotal - Higher education or work in science and technology 33 325

Subtotal – No involvement or have friends involved in science and technology 70 701

Total 100 1000

Q27 Do you usually speak a language other than English when at home?% n

Yes 13 129

No 87 871

Unsure/Don’t know 0 0

Total 100 1000

Q29 Are there children under 10 years of age living in your household?

90


% n

Yes 24 243

No 76 757

Total 100 1000

Demographics (Online survey respondents)

Please note the following results are unweighted

SQ1 Location% n

Sydney 21 205

Other New South Wales 11 110

Melbourne 19 185

Other Victoria 6 60

Brisbane 10 101

Other Queensland 11 109

Adelaide 6 60

Other South Australia 2 18

Perth 8 79

Other WA 2 22

Hobart 1 10

Other Tasmania 1 11

Canberra / ACT 2 22

Darwin 1 6

Other Northern Territory 0 2

Total 100 1000

SQ1 Location - State% n

NSW 32 315

VIC 25 245

QLD 21 210

SA 8 78

WA 10 101

TAS 2 21

ACT 2 22

NT 1 8

Total 100 1000

91


SQ1 Capital city vs. non-capital city% n

Capital city 67 668

Non capital city 33 332

Total 100 1000

SQ2 Gender% n

Male 49 492

Female 51 508

Total 100 1000

SQ3 Age% n

16-17 years old 3 25

18 – 20 years 2 22

21 – 30 years 19 185

31 – 40 years 20 195

41 – 50 years 20 204

51 – 60 years 17 165

61 – 70 years 17 170

71 – 75 years 3 34

Total 100 1000

SQ4 Do you have a landline phone at home that you use for phone calls (not just the internet)?

% n

Landline at home 81 809

Mobile only household 19 191

Total 100 1000

Q21i Are there children under 10 years of age living in your household?% n

Yes 28 278

No 72 722

Total 100 1000

Q23 What is the highest level of education you have ever attempted, whether or not you finished?

% n

No formal schooling 0 2

92


% n

Primary school 1 6

Some high school 4 44

Year 10/4th Form 7 68



Technical school, commercial college or TAFE 30 299

University degree or diploma (undergraduate or postgraduate) 40 398

Something else (Please specify) 1 9

Total 100 1000

Q23i Which of the following best describes you…? % n

Employed full time 37 365

Employed part time 18 176


Home duties 11 114

School or secondary student 3 26

TAFE or university student 5 46

Unemployed 4 43

Other 2 22

Refused 1 6

Self employed 1 9

Subtotal - Employed 55 550

Subtotal - Student 7 72

Total 100 1000

Q24 Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?% n

No 95 950

Yes 5 50

Total 100 1000

Q25 Do you speak any language other than English in your home?% n

Yes 11 108

No 89 892

Unsure/Don’t know 0 0

Total 100 1000

93


QuestionnairesCommunity Attitudes to Nanotechnology Questionnaire (Telephone)

Introduction

Hello, my name is [INTERVIEWER] and I’m calling from Iview.

We are conducting a short telephone survey on behalf the Australian Government about public opinion towards science and technology. It will help governments in Australia make decisions about scientific research We are not trying to sell you anything; and there are no right or wrong answers. We’re just interested in your opinions. The survey will take around 19 minutes. If you participate, the information you provide will be used only for research purposes.

[IF LANDLINE]

Can I please speak to the youngest male in the household aged over 16?

[IF NO MALES OVER 16] Can I please speak to the youngest female over the age of 16?

[IF MOBILE]

Will you be willing to take part?YES 1 CONTINUE

NO 2 ASK TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE ELSE 16 YEARS OR OLDER IN HOUSEHOLD WHO MAY BE INTERESTED, OTHERWISE TERMINATE WITH THANKS.

IF TIME IS INCONVENIENT:

Arrange call back.

IF CLIENT QUERIED:

I’m sorry, I can’t tell you the client’s name until the end of the survey, because it might affect the way you answer the questions, but I will be able to tell you at the end.

IF QUERIED ABOUT BONA FIDES OF RESEARCH:

I can provide the names of people who will verify the legitimate nature of this research project. The first is the Australian Market and Social Research Society enquiry line on 1300 36 4830. The second is the Project Manager at Ipsos Social Research Institute, Julie Young, on (03) 9946 0888.

IF QUERIED ABOUT HOW NUMBER WAS SOURCED:

We are contacting people using numbers generated randomly by a computer.

IF THE INTERVIEW WILL BE MONITORED:

My supervisor may be monitoring the interview for quality control purposes. If you do not wish this to occur, please let me know.

94


SCREENING

#Q23i. Age# {SINGLE}

[READ OUT APPROPRIATE AGE BRACKETS IF NECESSARY. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]15 or under <DISCONTINUE GO TO TERMINATION SCRIPT> 1

16-17 years old 2

18 – 20 years 3

21 – 30 years 4

31 – 40 years 5

41 – 50 years 6

51 – 60 years 7

61 – 70 years 8

71 – 75 years 9

76 years or over 10 <DISCONTINUE GO TO TERMINATION SCRIPT >

[DNRO] Refused 11 <DISCONTINUE GO TO TERMINATION SCRIPT >

#SQ1. Location# {SINGLE}

SQ1. Can you please tell me what state or territory you live in? [CLARIFY IF IN CAPITAL CITY] – And is that in [CAPITAL CITY] or outside [CAPITAL CITY]?

95


[RECORD LOCATION. OBSERVE QUOTAS.]Sydney 1

Other New South Wales 2

Melbourne 3

Other Victoria 4

Brisbane 5

Other Queensland 6

Adelaide 7

Other South Australia 8

Perth 9

Other WA 10

Hobart 11

Other Tasmania 12

Canberra/ACT 13

Darwin 14

Other Northern Territory 15

#Q26. Gender# {SINGLE}

Q26. RECORD GENDER:Male 1

Female 2

[TERMINATION SCRIPT IF DOES NOT QUALIFY OR QUOTA EXCEEDED:]

“Unfortunately you’re not one of the people who we need to talk to for this particular survey. Thanks for being willing to participate.”

<IF MOBILE SAMPLE:>

{SINGLE}

SQ4. Do you have a landline phone at home that you use for phone calls (not just the internet)?

Yes 1

No 2

Prefer not to say 9

SECTION A: ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

96


Q1i. How would you say you feel about how science and technology is changing society on a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive? If you can’t say or don’t know, please just say so. [RECORD 0-10; 99 for Can’t say/don’t know]

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q1c. For the following statements, can you please tell me how much you agree or disagree on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree. If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.

So, on a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that…

[RANDOMISE ORDER][RECORD 0-1099 = Can’t say/

Don’t know]

1. Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it

2. Science and technology creates more problems than it solves

3. We depend too much on science and not enough on faith

4. New technologies excite me more than they concern me

5. Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest

6. The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect

7.Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor

8. We should use more natural ways of farming

9.People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

10. Human activities have a significant impact on the planet

11. People shouldn’t tamper with nature

12. I believe that everything in the world is connected

13. Not vaccinating children puts others at risk

14. Children must be protected from all risks

SECTION B: AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF NANOTECHNOLOGY

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q3i. How much would you say you personally know about “nanotechnology”? Would you say… you have not heard of it, OR, you have heard of it but know very little or nothing about it OR, you know enough about it that you could explain it to a friend. If you can’t say or don’t know, please just say so …Have not heard of it 1

Have heard of it but know very little or nothing about it 2

97


Know what nanotechnology means and how it works 3

Don’t know/can’t say 9

<IF Q3i = 2 OR Q3i = 3>

Q4. In what context have you heard about the term “nanotechnology”?

[UNPROMPTED - DO NOT READ OUT. MULTIPLE RESPONSE.

RECORD FIRST RESPONSE (Q4a), THEN OTHER RESPONSES (Q4b).]

[PROBE IF NECESSARY: Is there anything else?]Q4a

First Mentioned{Single

Response}

Q4bOther Answer

{Multiple Response}

Micro or small science or technology 1 1

Medical devices 2 2

Miniaturisation 3 3

Computing/the internet 4 4

Implanting devices in the body 5 5

Small robots 6 6

Very small measurements 7 7

Atoms and molecules 8 8

Microchips/microcircuits 9 9

Science fiction/futuristic 10 10

Making things faster or better 11 11

Automatic repair/self replication 12 12

Mobile phones 13 13

Book ‘Prey’/Michael Crichton’s book 14 14

I-Pod Nano product 15 15

Other products branded as “Nano” 16 16

Shampoo products 17 17

Health and safety issues 18 18

Ethical issues 19 19

Sunscreen lotions/sunblock products 20 20

Moisturisers/cosmetics 21 21

Other (SPECIFY) 22 22

Unsure/Don’t know 23 [GO TO Q6i] 23

Medical applications (general mention/NFI) 24 24

No others [Q4b only] 25

98


<IF Q3i = 2 OR Q3i = 3>

{OPEN ENDED}

Q6i. Based on what you know about “nanotechnology”, how would you describe your attitudes towards it?

[PROBE IF NECESSARY; TO BE CODED]

CODE FRAME:Positive Comments

Very useful for society as a whole 1

Exciting area 2

Positive – but I need more information about nanotechnology 3

Positive – but more R&D should be conducted 4

Has great potential as long as risks are managed 5

Involves engineering of very small particles 6

Positive – other comments 7

Negative Comments

Nanotechnology was scary/concerning concept 8

Negative – due to health risks 9

Damage to environment risks 10

More biosafety research needed 11

More regulation is needed 12

More transparency of nanotechnology information is needed 13

Negative – other comments 14

Unsure

Unsure – don’t know much about nanotechnology 15

Unsure – sounds too futuristic 16

Unsure – other comments 17

No comment made 18

SECTION C: AWARENESS OF NANOTECHNOLOGY

[SAY TO ALL]:

“I’m going to read you a definition of nanotechnology. You can ask me to repeat these definitions at any time.”

“Nanotechnology is science at a very small scale. It refers to new devices and materials with key parts about 10,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Working at this scale allows researchers to create new materials and products such as making sunscreens that are more transparent or drugs that can target individual cells”

99


<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q12a. How positive or negative, would you say you feel towards the potential implications of nanotechnology. Please use a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive? If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.

[RECORD ANSWER – 99 for Can’t say/don’t know]

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q7ai. Do you know of any products that include nanotechnology or are made with nanotechnology?Yes 1 Go to QUESTION 7b

No 2 Go to QUESTION 8a

Unsure/Don’t know 3 Go to QUESTION 8a

IF Q7ai = 1

{MULTIPLE RESPONSE}

Q7b. What products are you aware of?

[UNPROMPTED QUESTION. DO NOT READ OUT.

ALLOCATE ANSWER TO MOST APPROPRIATE ANSWER CODE]Medical instruments/health diagnostics 1

Computers 2

Telecommunications 3

Space industry 4

Mobile phones 5

Television sets 6

Security/surveillance devices 7

I-Pod Nanotechnology 8

Paint 9

Microchip for pets/Animal tracking for veterinarian or animal protection uses 10

Glazing finishers 11

Lubrication 12

Electronics/Semi-conductors 13

Creams/cosmetics/face creams/moisturisers 14

Measuring temperature 15

Measuring the digestive tract 16

100


Renewable energy (general mention) 17

Carbon nanotubes 18

Gas Detectors 19

Sunscreen 20

Fibre optics 21

Cochlear Ear Implants 22

Clothing using nanotechnology 23

Shampoo products 24

Drug delivery systems 25

Keyhole surgery systems 26

Other (SPECIFY) 27

Solar (specific mention) 28

Medical applications (general mention NFI) 29

Aware of products but can’t remember specific examples 30

SECTION D: EXTENT OF HEARING ABOUT “NANOTECHNOLOGY” APPLICATIONS

<ASK ALL>

{MULTIPLE}

Q8a. Have you heard of any of the following uses of nanotechnology?RANDOMISE AND READ OUT. MULTIPLE RESPONSE

[ASK Q8a and if = 1, ASK Q8b straight after]

{SINGLE}

Q8b. FOR EACH Q8a 1-8 = 1 (AWARE) ASK:

And has what you heard about it been positive, negative, neither, or both? If you are unsure, please just say so.

Q8a

Q8b

Positive Negative

Neither positive

or negativ

e

Both positive

and negativ

e

Unsure


1 1 2 3 4 99


2 1 2 3 4 99


3 1 2 3 4 99


4 1 2 3 4 99

101


Q8a

Q8b

Positive Negative

Neither positive

or negativ

e

Both positive

and negativ

e

Unsure


5 1 2 3 4 99

Water filtration through nanosized filters

6 1 2 3 4 99

New solar panels using nanotechnology

7 1 2 3 4 99

Carbon nanotubes used in manufacturing

8 1 2 3 4 99

None of the above 9

SECTION E: OPINION ABOUT SPECIFIC NANOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

<SPLIT SAMPLE – RANDOMLY SELECT 5 OF THE STATEMENTS PER RESPONDENT>

{SINGLE}

Q9i. For each of the following could you tell me to what degree do you feel that it is a negative or a positive use of nanotechnology using a 0-10 scale where 0 is an extremely negative use and 10 is an extremely positive use? If you feel you can’t say or don’t know, please just say so.

[RANDOMISE ORDER AND READ OUT][RECORD 0-10

99 = Can’t say/don’t know]

A Implants for diabetics that monitor sugar levels and deliver insulin as required

B Machines that exist in the blood stream to clear arterial clots or cancer cells

D Using nanoparticles to improve nutrients and vitamins in foods

E Food packaging that monitors environmental conditions to prevent food spoilage

F Filters that can control pollutants from entering the environment

G Technology that disassembles and breaks down urban waste and garbage

I Sunscreen lotions using nanotechnology to give lotion invisibility and higher sun protection

J Socks impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make the socks smell less

K Bandages impregnated with antibacterial nano silver to make them sterile for a longer time

L Miniaturised and undetectable surveillance devices

102


SECTION F: PUBLIC OPINION TOWARDS NANOTECHNOLOGY

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q10i. I am going to read out some statements that other people have made about nanotechnology and I would like you to tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree using a scale where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree. If you don’t know or can’t say, please just say so. Do you disagree or agree that…

[RANDOMISE STATEMENTS - READ OUT]RECORD 0-

1099 = Can’t say/Don’t

know

A Nanotechnology applications will have a positive impact on employment and the economy of Australia

B I would definitely like to know more about nanotechnology and its potential applications

C I still really do not understand what nanotechnology is or how it could be used

D I believe nanotechnology will improve the future quality of life in Australia

E It is important for me to know if the products I buy are made with nanotechnology or include some form of nanotechnology

F I am concerned about the unexpected risks involved in the use of nanotechnology

G I am concerned about the health and safety risks of nanotechnology

H I am concerned about the environmental risks of nanotechnology

J Only products with nanotechnology of concern should be labelled

K I always read product labels to see if a product contains nanotechnology

SECTION G: EXAMINATION OF ANY CONCERNS ABOUT NANOTECHNOLOGY

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q11a. To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements? Please use a 0-10 scale where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree. If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.

[RANDOMISE STATEMENTS - READ OUT]RECORD

0-1099 - Can’t say/don’t

know

A Nanotechnology is difficult to understand

B Because nanotechnology is so new, there might be problems for public safety

103


RECORD0-10

99 - Can’t say/don’t

know

C The new processes of nanotechnology may cause problems for worker safety

Di The general public is being kept well informed about nanotechnology

Ei Nanotechnology regulation and safeguards are keeping up with the development of nanotechnology

F Product labelling should provide information about any nanotechnology used

Gi I have concerns about nanotechnology

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q14. On the whole, do you think in relation to nanotechnology, the risks outweigh the benefits, the risks are equal to the benefits, or that the benefits outweigh the risks……?

[ROTATE ORDER 1, 2, 3 and 3, 2, 1 (RECORD ORDER)]The risks of nanotechnology outweigh the benefits 1

The risks of nanotechnology are equal to the benefits 2

The benefits of nanotechnology outweigh the risks 3

Can’t say/don’t know 4

SECTION K: INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q20i What is the likelihood that you would have sought information about new technologies such as nanotechnology prior to today? Would you say…Not likely at all 1

Somewhat unlikely 2

Neither likely nor unlikely 3

Somewhat likely 4

Very likely 5


<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q20ii What is the likelihood that you would seek information about new technologies such as nanotechnology in the future? Would you say…

104


Not likely at all 1

Somewhat unlikely 2

Neither likely nor unlikely 3

Somewhat likely 4

Very likely 5


<IF Q20i = 4 OR 5 OR Q20ii = 4 OR 5>

Q20. When you want to find out more about new developments such as nanotechnology, where would you go to look for information?

[DO NOT READ OUT. RECORD FIRST RESPONSE –SINGLE RESPONSE. MULTIPLE RESPONSE ALLOWED FOR OTHERS MENTIONED]

Q20aFirst Mentioned

{Single Response}

Q20bOther Answer

{Multiple Response}

Press/newspapers 1 1

Television 2 2

Radio 3 3

Word of mouth from family & friends 4 4

Word of mouth from colleagues 5 5

Searching the internet 6 6

Government agencies or regulators 7 7

Government websites 8 8

Science magazines 9 9

Books 10 10

Product information labels 11 11

Scientists presenting information on nanotechnology 12 12

Manufacturers or product distributors and their nanotechnology information 13 13

Public displays or events that allow people to discuss nanotechnology and ask questions 14 14

Science museums and Science Centres 15 15

Businesses 16 16

Non-government organisations (NGO’s) and community advocacy groups 17 17

LinkedIn – electronic professional network 18 18

Other (SPECIFY) 19 19

Don’t know/Can’t say 20 [GO TO Q21] 20

Unlikely to look for information about nanotechnology 21 [GO TO Q21] 21

105


Q20aFirst Mentioned

{Single Response}

Q20bOther Answer

{Multiple Response}

Social networking sites i.e. Twitter, Facebook, blogs 22 22

No others [Q20b only] 23

<IF Q20A = 6 OR Q20B6 = 1>

{MULTIPLE RESPONSE}

Q21. If you search the internet, what sites would you use to find information about nanotechnology?

[UNPROMPTED QUESTION. DO NOT READ OUT. ]Wikipedia 1

General Google search 2

Government websites 3

Regulator websites 4

NGO and Community advocacy websites 5

News media sites 6

Science websites 7

Twitter 8

Blogs talking about nanotechnology 9

“Facebook friends” 10

As many sites as possible 11

Other specific sites (SPECIFY) 12

Would not search the internet 13

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q12B. Now we are getting towards the end of the survey, on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive, how do you feel towards the potential implications of nanotechnology? Again, there are no right or wrong answers, if you can’t say or don’t know, please just say so. [RECORD ANSWER 0-10 OR 99 FOR CAN’T SAY/DON’T KNOW]

SECTION M: DEMOGRAPHICS

Just a few more questions to help us with our analysis:

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q24. Which of the following best describes you…?

106


[READ OUT] Employed full time 1

Employed part time 2


Home duties 4

School or secondary student 5

TAFE or university student 6

Unemployed 7

Other (SPECIFY) 8

Refused (DO NOT READ) 9

<ASK ALL>

{MULTIPLE RESPONSE}

Q25. Have you…. undertaken a science subject at university or TAFE; or do you have links to science through friends involved in the field science and technology or through your work?

[PROBE TO CLASSIFY APPROPRIATE RESPONSE]Educational Study

High school/senior secondary school only 1 [EXCLUSIVE]

TAFE studies 2

University - undergraduate 3

University – post graduate 4

Non-education

Friends involved in science and technology 5

Work in science and technology field 6

None – no involvement in science 7 [EXCLUSIVE]

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q27. Do you usually speak a language other than English when at home?Yes [SPECIFY] 1

No 2

Unsure/Don’t know 3

Q29. Are there children under 10 years of age living in your household?No 0

Yes 1

Q30. What is your residential postcode? [RECORD]

107


<ASK ALL>

Q30a. As part of this study, we may be organising further research sessions with people about emerging technologies. Would you happy for us to contact you about taking part in further research?

Yes 1

No 2

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q31. At the completion of this research, the findings will be available online. Would you be interested us emailing you a link to the results?

[READ OUT:]

If you say yes, your name and contact details will be passed onto the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education and will be used only for the purpose of sending you the results.

Please be assured that your personal details will be treated in strict confidence and will remain separate to your responses to this survey.

No, I would not be interested 1

Yes, I would be interested in getting the research findings 2

<IF Q30a = 1 OR Q31 = 2>

Q31a. Could I please have your…

[RECORD]Name:

Email address: [OPTIONAL]

Confirm email address: [OPTIONAL]

[IF Q30a = 1 ONLY ] Contact phone number:

Now that’s the end of the interview. Thank you very much for your time. This research is being carried out on behalf of the federal Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research and Tertiary Education. The answers you provided today will be combined with those of other participants to give the Department a better understanding of Australians’ views on nanotechnology. If you would like to know more about emerging technologies further information is available on www.technyou.edu.au [PRONOUNCED “TECH”,”N”,”YOU” - SPELL OUT WEBSITE ADDRESS]

Lastly, as part of quality control procedures, someone from our project team may wish to re-contact you to verify some of the information we just collected. Would that be okay?

[IF SO, COLLECT FIRST NAME]

108

http://www.technyou.edu.au/


Just to remind you, I’m calling from Iview. If you have any queries, you can call the Australian Market and Social Research Society’s enquiry line on 1300 364 830.

Community Attitudes to emerging technology questionnaire - ONLINE

SCREENING

#SQ2. Gender# {SINGLE}

SQ2. Are you…?

[NOTE QUOTAS]Male 1

Female 2

#SQ3i. Age# {SINGLE}

SQ3i. Approximately, how old are you?

[NOTE QUOTAS]15 or under 1 <DISCONTINUE GO TO

TERMINATION SCRIPT>

16 -17 years old 2

18 – 20 years 3

21 – 30 years 4

31 – 40 years 5

41 – 50 years 6

51 – 60 years 7

61 – 70 years 8

71 – 75 years 9

76 years or over 10 <DISCONTINUE GO TO TERMINATION SCRIPT >

Prefer not to say 11 <DISCONTINUE GO TO TERMINATION SCRIPT >

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

#SQ1. Location# {SINGLE}

SQ1. Where do you live?

[NOTE QUOTAS]Sydney 1

Other New South Wales 2

Melbourne 3

Other Victoria 4

109


Brisbane 5

Other Queensland 6

Adelaide 7

Other South Australia 8

Perth 9

Other WA 10

Hobart 11

Other Tasmania 12

Canberra/ACT 13

Darwin 14

Other Northern Territory 15

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

[TERMINATION SCRIPT IF DOES NOT QUALIFY OR QUOTA EXCEEDED:]

Unfortunately you’re not one of the people who we need to talk to for this particular survey. Thank you for being willing to participate.

[REDIRECT TO www.technyou.edu.au ]

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

SQ4. Do you have a landline phone at home that you use for phone calls (not just the internet)?

Yes 1

No 2

Prefer not to say 9

A. UNDERSTANDING OF TERMINOLOGY

<ASK ALL>

#Q1a. Tell me whether you... # {SINGLE}

Q1a. For the following list of technologies could you please say whether…

you have not heard of it, OR

you have heard of it but know very little or nothing about it OR,

you know enough about it that you could explain it to a friend.

110



There are no right or wrong answers so If you can’t say or don’t know, please select ‘don’t know’ …

[RANDOMISE ORDER]

Technology Have not heard of it

Have heard of it, but


Know enough about it that you

could explain it to a friend

Can’t say / Don’t know

i. Biotechnology 1 2 3 9

ii. Genetic modification 1 2 3 9

iii. Cloning human embryos 1 2 3 9

iv. Cloning of animals 1 2 3 9

v. Stem cell research 1 2 3 9

vii. Nanotechnology 1 2 3 9

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<FOR EACH Q1ai- Q1aviii = 2 OR 3 (IF RESPONDENT HAS HEARD OF TECH ASK) >

{SINGLE}

Q1b. And do you think these technologies will generally

improve our way of life in the future, OR

have no effect, OR

make things worse in the future?

If you don’t know or can’t say please just say so.

[READ OUT ITEMS (i)-(v). PRESERVE ORDER FROM Q1a.]

TechnologyImprove our way

of life in the future

Have no effect

Make things worse in the

future

Can’t say/

Don’t know

i. Biotechnology 1 2 3 9

ii. Genetic modification 1 2 3 9

iii. Cloning human embryos 1 2 3 9

iv. Cloning of animals 1 2 3 9

v. Stem cell research 1 2 3 9

viii. Nanotechnology 1 2 3 9

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

111


{SINGLE}

Q1c. For the following statements, can you say how much you disagree or agree on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree.

If you can’t say or don’t know, please select ‘don’t know’.

So, on a scale of 0-10, would you say do you disagree or agree that …

[RANDOMISE ORDER – USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 and Don’t know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Strongly disagree and 10 – Strongly agree]1. Technological change happens too fast for me to keep up with it

2. Science and technology creates more problems than it solves

3. We depend too much on science and not enough on faith

4. New technologies excite me more than they concern me

5. Science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest

6. The benefits of science are greater than any harmful effect

7. Scientific advances tend to benefit the rich more than they benefit the poor

8. We should use more natural ways of farming

9. People have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

10. Human activities have a significant impact on the planet

11. People shouldn’t tamper with nature

12. I believe that everything in the world is connected

13. Not vaccinating children puts others at risk

14. Children must be protected from all risks

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

[PRESENT TO ALL]:

Throughout this survey the terms ‘genetic modification’ or GM and ‘biotechnology’ will be used.

The definitions of these terms are below:

Genetic modification or GM is using laboratory techniques to basically, “cut and paste” a gene from one living thing to another, or modifying or removing a gene within an organism.

Biotechnology is using the science of living things and biological processes to develop or make products. It is broader than genetic modification or GM and includes other processes that do not change genetic information. It is used in food production such as culturing yoghurt and brewing beer as well as in farming and agriculture, and in medical treatments and research.

If you need to remind yourself of the definitions, please hover over the link at the bottom of each page of this survey.

112


[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definitions: Biotechnology and GM

Genetic modification or GM is using laboratory techniques to basically, “cut and paste” a gene from one living thing to another, or modifying or removing a gene within an organism.

Biotechnology is using the science of living things and biological processes to develop or make products. It is broader than genetic modification or GM and includes other processes that do not change genetic information. It is used in food production such as culturing yoghurt and brewing beer as well as in farming and agriculture, and in medical treatments and research. ]

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

The following questions relate to biotechnology and GM…

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q16bi. How would you rate your level of support for the use of GM or genetic modification and other biotechnologies?

Please use a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is completely against it and where 10 is completely supportive.

If you can’t say or don’t know, please select ‘don’t know’. Completely against it

Completely supportive

Don’t know / Can’t say

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definitions: Biotechnology and GM ]

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

D. CONFIDENCE IN FOOD

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q7. Now I’d like you to think about food.

How unwilling or willing would you be to eat the following? Please use a scale of 0-10, where 0 means you would be extremely unwilling and where 10 means you would be extremely willing.

If you can’t say or don’t know, please select ‘don’t know’.

113


[RANDOMISE ORDER – USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 and Don’t know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Extremely unwilling and 10 – Extremely willing]i. Food containing preservatives

ii. Food grown with the use of pesticides

iii. Organic food

iv. Processed foods such as bread or soy milk, that has been made from genetically modified crops

v. Processed foods such as cakes or biscuits that contain only a small amount of genetically modified ingredients

vi. Genetically modified fruit and vegetables

vii. Meat and other products from animals that have been fed with genetically modified stock feed

viii. Meat and other products from genetically modified animals

ix. Meat and other products from cloned animals

x. Meat and other products from the offspring of cloned animals


------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

E. ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q8i. Can you please say how much you disagree or agree with each of the following statements using a scale where 0 is strongly disagree and 10 is strongly agree.

If you don’t know or can’t say, please select ‘don’t know’.

[RANDOMISE ORDER – USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN WITH 0-10 and Don’t know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Strongly disagree and 10 – Strongly agree]

Statement

i. The characteristics of plants and animals should only be changed through traditional breeding methods

ii. We should accept some degree of risk from genetic modification if it enhances Australia’s economic competitiveness

iii. We should reject genetic modification if it reduces Australia’s economic competitiveness

v. Australian farms need genetically modified organisms to stay financially viable

vi. Australian farms need to be free of genetically modified organisms to stay financially viable

xi. Privacy laws should prevent governments and other organisations from accessing information on people’s genetic make-up

xiii. The Australian government should enable the community to participate more in decisions on biotechnology issues including regulation

xvii. Commercial use of genetic modification and its products should only be allowed after regulatory approval

114



------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q9. Please say whether you think each of the following statements is true or false.

If you can’t say, or don’t know, please select ‘don’t know’.

[RANDOMISE ORDER] Application True False Don’t

know

i. Most of the processed foods in Australian supermarkets contain genetically modified ingredients 1 2 9

ii. Most of the fresh fruit and vegetables grown in Australia are genetically modified 1 2 9

iii. Most of the cotton grown in Australia is genetically modified 1 2 9

iv. Most of the vegetable oils produced in Australia are made from genetically modified crops 1 2 9


------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{OPEN ENDED – NO CODING REQUIRED}

Q11a. Which organisation or organisations do you believe are responsible for the regulation of genetic modification and other biotechnologies in Australia?

If you don’t know or can’t say please tick the box below

[PLEASE INCLUDE DON’T KNOW/CAN’T SAY TICK BOX]

CODE FRAME TO USE:Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ 1

The Office Of The Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) 2

DAFF Biosecurity or (Department Of Agriculture, Fisheries And Forestry (Daff) Biosecurity ) [FULL NAME] 3

Biosecurity Australia 4

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) 5

The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education 6

115


National Health And Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) 7

Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) 8

Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC) 9

Department of Health & Ageing/Department of Health 10

CSIRO 11

Federal Government/ ”The Government” – NFI 12

Local Government – NFI 13

State Government – NFI 14

Other Department/Agency/Body 15

Department Of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) 16

None 98

Don’t Know 99


------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q11c.Have you heard of the following organisations?

[RANDOMISE] Yes No Don’t

know

i. Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ 1 0 99

ii. The Office of The Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) 1 0 99

iii. DAFF Biosecurity or (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries And Forestry Biosecurity )

1 0 99

iv. Biosecurity Australia 1 0 99

vii. National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC) 1 0 99

viii. Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) 1 0 99

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<IF Q11c_ii, Q11c_iii, Q11c_iv, Q11c_vii OR Q11c_viii = 1 >

{SINGLE}

Q11di How much trust do you place in the following organisations on a scale where 0 is do not trust at all and 10 is trust completely?

If you can’t say, or don’t know please select ‘don’t know’.

116


[PRESERVE ORDER FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION– USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN WITH 0-10 and Don’t know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Do not trust at all and 10 – Trust completely]i. Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ

ii. The Office of The Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR)

iii. DAFF Biosecurity or (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Biosecurity )

iv. Biosecurity Australia

vii. National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC)

viii. Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<IF Q11c_ii, Q11c_iii, Q11c_iv, Q11c_vii OR Q11c_viii = 1 >

{SINGLE}

Q11dii And how much trust do you place on what these organisations tell you about the risks and benefits of biotechnology on a scale where 0 is do not trust at all and 10 is trust completely?

If you can’t say, or don’t know please select ‘don’t know’.

[PRESERVE ORDER FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION– USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 and Don’t know/Can’t say; LABEL 0 – Do not trust at all and 10 – Trust completely]i. Food Standards Australia New Zealand or FSANZ

ii. The Office of The Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR)

iii. DAFF Biosecurity or (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) Biosecurity )

iv. Biosecurity Australia

vii. National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC)

viii. Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

[PRESENT TO ALL]

Another area of science is nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology is science at a very small scale. It refers to new devices and materials with key parts about 10,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Working at this scale allows researchers to create new materials and products such as making sunscreens that are more transparent or drugs that can target individual cells

[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN WHERE SPECIFIED -Label link as: Definition: Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is science at a very small scale. It refers to new devices and materials with key parts about 10,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Working at this scale allows researchers to create new materials and products such as

117


making sunscreens that are more transparent or drugs that can target individual cells ]

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q12a. How positive or negative, would you say you feel towards the potential implications of nanotechnology? Please use a 0 to 10 scale where 0 is extremely negative and 10 is extremely positive? If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so. Extremely negative

Extremely positive

Don’t know / Can’t say

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[INCLUDE HOVER OVER/POP UP OF DEFINITION AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN -Label link as: Definition: Nanotechnology]

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q19i. How much trust do you place on what the following groups tell you about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology on a scale where 0 is do not trust at all and 10 is trust completely?

If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.

[RANDOMISE AND USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 – Label: 0 – Do not trust at all; 10 Trust completely; Can’t say/don’t know]

0-1099 = Can’t say/Don’t

know

A Industry associations

B Government agencies or regulators

C Scientists

D Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products

E mass media

F non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups

G Science Institutes and organisations such as CSIRO and universities


118


------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q19ii.And to what extent would you say that the following groups have the expertise to tell you about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology?

Please use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 is strongly disagree that they have the expertise and 10 is strongly agree that they have the expertise?

If you can’t say or don’t know, just say so.

[RANDOMISE AND USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 – Label: 0 – Strongly disagree have expertise; 10 Strongly agree have expertise; Can’t say/don’t know]

RECORD 0-10

OR 99 = Can’t

say/Don’t know

A Industry associations

B Government agencies or regulators

C Scientists

D Manufacturers and distributors of consumer products

E Mass media

F non-government organisations or NGO’s and community advocacy groups

G Science Institutes and organisations such as CSIRO and universities


------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q17i. How important do you believe it is that government agencies allocate budget resources to the following…?

Please use a scale of 0-10 where 0 is not important at all and 10 is critical.

If you can’t say or don’t know, please just say so.

[RANDOMISE AND USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 – Label: 0 – Not important at all; 10 - Critical; Can’t say/don’t know]

119


0-1099= Can’t say/don’t

know

A Monitor nanotechnology developments

B Monitor products for the presence of nanoparticles

C Provide funding to private enterprises to develop nanotechnology

D Provide funding to public institutions, like universities, to research nanotechnology

E Provide regular information to the general public about nanotechnology

F Regulate the development of nanotechnology

G Require testing of all products using nanotechnology

Hi Regulate labelling of products using nanotechnology


------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q22i. We are near the end of the survey now.

What is your level of support for the following science and technology developments? If for any of the technologies, you are not sure, please just say so.

Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is completely against it and 10 is completely supportive, how would you say you feel towards:

[RANDMOISE AND USE GRID WITH STATEMENT THEN 0-10 – Label: 0 – completely against it; 10 - completely supportive; Can’t say/don’t know]

[RECORD0-10

99 = Can’t say don’t know]

A Stem cell research

B Genetically modified foods or GM foods

C Cloning (including therapeutic cloning)

D The role of science and technology in addressing climate change

E Synthetic Biology research

F Quantum Computing research

G Nanotechnology

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

120


I. DEMOGRAPHICS

Finally, just a few questions to ensure that we’ve included a good range of people in our survey.

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE} #Q21i. Are there children under 10 years of age living in your household?#

Q21i. Are there children under 10 years of age living in your household?No 0

Yes 1

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q23. What is the highest level of education you have ever attempted, whether or not you finished? Please select one only

No formal schooling 1

Primary school 2

Some high school 3

Year 10/4th Form 4

Year 11/5th Form 5

Year 12/6th Form 6

Technical school, commercial college or TAFE 7

University degree or diploma (undergraduate or postgraduate) 8

Something else [SPECIFY] 9

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q23i. Which of the following best describes you…? Please select one onlyEmployed full time 1

Employed part time 2


Home duties 4

School or secondary student 5

TAFE or university student 6

Unemployed 7

Other (SPECIFY) 8

121


Prefer not to say 9

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q24. Do you identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?Yes 1

No 0

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q25. Do you speak any language other than English in your home? No, English only 0

Yes, [SPECIFY] 1

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q26. What is your residential postcode? [RECORD]

[INCLUDE TICK BOX FOR DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE]

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<ASK ALL>

Q30a. As part of this study, we may be organising further research sessions with people about emerging technologies. Would you happy for us to contact you about taking part in further research?

Yes 1

No 2

<ASK ALL>

{SINGLE}

Q30. At the completion of this research, the findings will also be available online. Would you be interested us emailing you a link to the results?

If you select yes, your name and contact details will be passed onto the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education and will be used only for the purpose of sending you the results.


122


Yes, I would be interested in getting the research findings 2

No, I would not be interested 1

------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

<IF Q30a = 1 OR Q30 = 2>

Q31a. Could you please provide your details below for us to:

<IF Q30a = 1> - Contact you about further research we’re doing about science and technology

<IF Q30 = 2 > - Send you the results of the researchName:

Email address (optional): [OPTIONAL]

Confirm email address (optional): [OPTIONAL]

[IF Q30a = 1 ONLY ] Contact phone number:


------------------------------------ [NEW SCREEN] -----------------------------------

[CLOSING SCREEN]

That is the end of the survey. Thank you very much for your time.

This research is being carried out on behalf of the federal Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research and Tertiary Education.

The answers you provided today will be combined with those of other participants to give the Department a better understanding of Australians’ views on biotechnology.

[REDIRECT TO www.technyou.edu.au ]

123


community attitudes towards emerging technology web viewcommunity attitudes towards emerging...

Documents