Public Ambivalent About Human Enhancing Nanotech

December 04, 2008

A team of researchers from North Carolina State University and Arizona State University recently released their "Public Awareness of Nanotechnology Study," the first national survey to examine public opinion on the use of nanotechnology for human enhancement. Enhancement meaning, among other things, artificial eyesight, human biomarkers that detect diseases early, implants  to improve performance of soldiers on the battlefield and brain implants to permit basic computer to brain functions.

The researchers say, "Overall, we find that attitudes are largely ambivalent and dependent on the information provided in the question wording, but also that interest declines as they learn more and that equity is fairly important concern regarding the long-term distribution of potential benefits."

Some interesting findings:

• Most people say they have not heard anything about nano for human enhancements (61%), while just 38% say they have heard nothing about nanotechnology in general.
• Of those who have heard something about nanotechnology, most people associate it with “machines and computers” (84%) rather than “consumer products” (47%), even though nano-based applications are mostly enhancements to consumer products.
• Interestingly, far fewer people believed that human enhancements were important at the end of the survey after they had been asked more questions about it (55%) than at the beginning before they heard much about it (81%).   

I think the last point is the most interesting and harkens back to a post I did in October about how people filter scientific information. An increase in knowledge about the benefits of a particular scientific approach isn't necessarily going to garner more support. 

Image: Flatliner