Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government

Details the findings of a public opinion survey of American perceptions of nanotechnology. Looks at potential benefits, consumer awareness, possible health and environmental risks, government oversight, and management by government and industry

Review of quantitative and qualitative studies on U.S. public perceptions of synthetic biology

How are public perceptions towards synthetic biology likely to evolve? Which factors will impact the framing of this emerging technology, its benefits and risks? The objective of this article is not to draw exhaustive conclusions about public perceptions of synthetic biology, but rather to provide readers with a review of integrated findings from the first quantitative and qualitative research ever conducted on this subject in the United States. Synthetic biology survey research shows two clear findings. The first is that most people know little or nothing about synthetic biology. Second, notwithstanding this lack of knowledge, respondents are likely to venture some remark about what they think synthetic biology is and the tradeoff between potential benefits and potential risks. Finding only some support for the “familiarity argument”—according to which support for emerging technologies will likely increase as awareness of them develops—this article suggests that analogs to cloning, genetic engineering and stem cell research appear to be recurrent in the framing process of synthetic biology. The domain of application seems to be another decisive factor in the framing of synthetic biology. Finally, acceptance of the risk-benefit tradeoff of synthetic biology seems to depend on having an oversight structure that would prove able to manage unknowns, human and environmental concerns, and long-term effects. The most important conclusion of this study is the need for additional investigation of factors that will shape public perceptions about synthetic biology, its potential benefits, and its potential risks

Nanoethics, science communication, and a fourth model for public engagement

This paper develops a fourth model of public engagement with science, grounded in the principle of nurturing scientific agency through online participatory bioethics. It argues that social media is an effective device through which to enable such engagement, as it has the capacity to empower users and transforms audiences into co-producers of knowledge, rather than consumers of content, the value of which is recognised within the citizen science movement. Social media also fosters greater engagement with the political and legal implications of science, thus promoting the value of scientific citizenship through the acquisition of science capital. This argument is explored by considering the case of nanoscience and nanotechnology, as an exemplar for how emerging technologies may be handled by the scientific community and science policy makers, and as a technology that has defined a second era of science communication

The importance of context: an exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty

Background: Research at the secondary and postsecondary levels has clearly demonstrated the critical role that individual and contextual characteristics play in instructors’ decision to adopt educational innovations. Although recent research has shed light on factors influencing the teaching practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty, it is still not well understood how unique departmental environments impact faculty adoption of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) within the context of a single institution. In this study, we sought to characterize the communication channels utilized by STEM faculty, as well as the contextual and individual factors that influence the teaching practices of STEM faculty at the departmental level. Accordingly, we collected survey and observational data from the chemistry, biology, and physics faculty at a single large research-intensive university in the USA. We then compared the influencing factors experienced by faculty in these different departments to their instructional practices. Results: Analyses of the survey data reveal disciplinary differences in the factors influencing adoption of EBIPs. In particular, the physics faculty (n = 15) had primarily student-centered views about teaching and experienced the most positive contextual factors toward adoption of EBIPs. At the other end of the spectrum, the chemistry faculty (n = 20) had primarily teacher-centered views and experienced contextual factors that hindered the adoption of student-centered practices. Biology faculty (n = 25) fell between these two groups. Classroom observational data reflected these differences: The physics classrooms were significantly more student-centered than the chemistry classrooms. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that disciplinary differences exist in the contextual factors teaching conceptions that STEM faculty experience and hold, even among faculty within the same institution. Moreover, it shows that these differences are associated to the level of adoption of student-centered teaching practices. This work has thus identified the critical need to carefully characterize STEM faculty’s departmental environment and conceptions about teaching before engaging in instructional reform efforts, and to adapt reform activities to account for these factors. The results of this study also caution the over generalization of findings from a study focused on one type of STEM faculty in one environment to all STEM faculty in any environment

A comparative study of the pelvic girdle of mammals

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Kansas, Zoology, 1929