Classifying US nano-scientists: Of cautious innovators, regulators, and technology optimists

Youngjae Kim, Elizabeth Corley, Dietram A. Scheufele

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    13 Scopus citations


    Government regulations to address technological risks are important for the successful development and application of nanotechnology, but there is an ongoing debate in the USA about who is responsible for the regulation of nanotechnology. In a mail survey of leading US nano-scientists, we examine scientists' perceptions about nano-regulation, including the government level (local, national, or international) at which the scientists believe nanotechnology regulation should be implemented. This regulatory discussion is important because international regulations are often difficult to adopt and implement; yet, local or state-level regulations could lead to the nanotechnology equivalent of the pollution haven hypothesis. We conclude that leading US nano-scientists have varying perceptions about nanotechnology regulations with some scientists supporting local regulations, but most scientists supporting national-level or international-level regulations. Additionally, our results show the emergence of three distinct categories of nanoscientists that have unique perspectives on nano-regulation: 'cautious innovators', 'nanoregulators', and 'technology optimists'.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)30-38
    Number of pages9
    JournalScience and Public Policy
    Issue number1
    StatePublished - 2012


    • Nanotechnology regulation
    • Risk perceptions
    • Scientist attitudes
    • Survey data collection

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Geography, Planning and Development
    • Public Administration
    • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law


    Dive into the research topics of 'Classifying US nano-scientists: Of cautious innovators, regulators, and technology optimists'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this