Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology

This article presents early results from an opinion formation study based on a 76-member panel of U.S. citizens, with comparison data from a group of 177 nanotechnology experts. While initially similar to the expert group in terms of their perceptions of the risks, benefits, and need for regulation characterizing several forms of nanotechnology, the first follow-up survey indicates that the panel is beginning to diverge from the experts, particularly with respect to perceptions of the levels of various “societal” risks that nanotechnology might present. The data suggest that responding to public concerns may involve more than attention to physical risks in areas such as health and environment; concerns about other forms of risk actually appear more salient

The security system at European airports—Tour d’Horizon

This paper aims to provide an analysis of the existing security system at European airports. At first, the security is defined and the considerations of the air passenger security on the ground and in the air are discussed. Subsequently, current aspects shaping the European aviation security policy are introduced. The analysis of stakeholders and their roles in aviation security is presented. The passengers’ perspective is of special focus. Next, security measures such as physical security measures and personnel are presented while specific issues such as technology deployment, standards and passenger acceptance are discussed in the European context. New concept for security is introduced. The analysis conducted leads us to the conclusions. The existing security system at European airports is rather reactive than proactive. The new concepts rely heavily on technological developments while it is crucial to increase the focus on intelligence gathering and passenger experience. Based on the identified gaps in the existing literature, further research should focus on CBA of European aviation security system as well as human drivers of (in)security

Viewpoint: Terrorism and Dispelling the Myth of a Panic Prone Public

Governments and commentators perceive the public to be prone to panic in response to terrorist attacks - conventional or involving chemical, biological or radiological weapons. Evidence from five such incidents suggests that the public is not prone to panic, although people can change their behaviours and attitudes to reduce the risk of themselves being exposed to a terrorist incident. Behavioural responses may be divided into acts of omission, such as not making unnecessary journeys, and acts of commission, such as taking prophylactic medication despite the inherent risk of side effects. Evidence suggests that the public are aware of these differences, and tend to adopt responses proportionate to the risk. Drawing upon the literature in the social and natural sciences, our discussion encompasses differing risk perceptions of terrorist threats and consequences of attacks. How do fear and anxiety interact with behavioural responses to amplify or attenuate perceptions that can be modified through risk communication undertaken by authorities

Improving communication of breast cancer recurrence risk

PURPOSE: Doctors commonly use genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk. We sought to assess whether the standard genomic report provided to doctors is a good approach for communicating results to patients. METHODS: During 2009–2010, we interviewed 133 patients with stages I or II, node-negative, hormone-receptor positive breast cancer and eligible for the Oncotype DX genomic test. In a randomized experiment, patients viewed 6 vignettes that presented hypothetical recurrence risk test results. Each vignette described a low, intermediate, or high chance of breast cancer recurrence in 10 years. Vignettes used one of five risk formats of increasing complexity that we derived from the standard report that accompanies the commercial assay or a sixth format that used an icon array. RESULTS: Among women who received the genomic recurrence risk test, 63% said their doctors showed them the standard report. The standard report format yielded among the most errors in identification of whether a result was low, intermediate or high risk (i.e., the gist of the results), while a newly developed risk continuum format yielded the fewest errors (17% vs. 5%; OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.52). For high-recurrence risk results presented in the standard format, women made errors 35% of the time. Women rated the standard report as one of the least understandable and least liked formats, but they rated the risk continuum format as among the most understandable and most liked. Results differed little by health literacy, numeracy, prior receipt of genomic test results during clinical care and actual genomic test results. CONCLUSION: The standard genomic recurrence risk report was more difficult for women to understand and interpret than other formats. A less complex report, potentially including the risk continuum format, would be more effective in communicating test results to patients