Study helps nanotech researchers hone their outreach
skill
f you could paint a gallon of paint one nanometer thick, how much area
could you cover? The surprising answer—about 930 acres, or slightly
larger than New York’s Central Park—certainly makes fun
trivia fodder. More importantly, however,
it points nanotechnology researchers to strategies that help them more
effectively communicate the scale, scope and “wow” of their
work to nontechnical audiences.
With consumer applications
in everything from clothing, personal-care products and sporting goods
to air purification systems, computers and home appliances, nanotechnology
rapidly is becoming an integral part of everyday life. Yet survey results
show that public audiences largely lack awareness and understanding
of nanotechnology concepts, says Olivia Castellini,
a former postdoctoral researcher with the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Materials
Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) Interdisciplinary
Education Group.
“In the very near future,
the public will be asked to make a variety of decisions about nanotechnology,
including whether or not to purchase nanotechnology products, how nanotechnology
should be regulated—if at all—and whether public funding
should be used to support nanotechnology research,” she says.
“The more knowledge and awareness the public has about nanotechnology,
the better prepared they will be to make these kinds of decisions.”
Now an exhibit developer
in the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry Department of Science
and Technology, Castellini led a study in which she and three undergraduate
interns surveyed 495 people ages 7 to 91 to test their knowledge of
atoms, nanotechnology and size scale, and to assess their attitudes
toward nanotechnology. The group published its results, also available
online, in Vol. 992 of the Journal of Nanoparticle Research.
“Our most significant
finding is that public knowledge of fundamental science concepts related
to nanotechnology varies a great deal based on age and educational experience,”
says Castellini.
Many survey respondents who
had heard about nanotechnology said they learn about it from mass media
like television, newspapers, movies or the Internet, yet less than 20
percent of all respondents could correctly define it as science and
technology on a tiny scale (there are about 25 million nanometers in
an inch).
In addition, survey responses
relating to the size scale of such microscopic objects as an atom, cell,
bacterium and water molecule showed that people find it difficult to
grasp concepts they cannot visualize.
“The ideas that atoms
are the building blocks of matter and a conceptual understanding of
the tiny size of the nanoscale are central to understanding nanotechnology
concepts. In fact, nanotechnology is frequently defined for public audiences
as ‘technology on the scale of atoms,’” says Castellini.
“Our study found that the majority of people educated at the middle-school
level or higher could recall facts about atoms—but that fact-based
knowledge did not necessarily guarantee their conceptual understanding
of them.”
The survey originated in
fall 2004 when she and the students began developing museum exhibit
prototypes about nanotechnology. At the time, they found very little
published information about public knowledge of nanotechnology, says
Associate Professor Wendy
Crone. “The study was really crucial for our appreciation
for what the public knows about nanotechnology and for our appreciation
of the difficulties we would face in developing exhibits that involve
a size scale that’s smaller than you can see,” says Crone,
who directs the MRSEC Interdisciplinary Education Group.
Communication strategies
that emerged from the study also enabled group members to deliver more
meaningful nanotechnology information in face-to-face interactions with
audiences like schoolchildren, K-12 teachers and the public, says Crone.
“We learned some things that we had been doing wrong and adjusted
how we were presenting information based on the research findings,”
she says.
Researchers commonly communicate
nanotechnology concepts to general audiences via formal and informal
public lectures, outreach events, and demonstrations. “One of
the mistakes that’s very common for researchers to make is to
assume that, if I just blurt out everything I know, that people will
get something from it,” says Crone. “That one-way distribution
of information isn’t very effective.”
Rather, says Castellini,
researchers first should assess how much their audiences know about
basic nanotechnology concepts such as atoms and size scale, and conduct
a review, if necessary. “Highly visual presentations are particularly
effective for this purpose,” she says. “Additionally, we
recommend limiting the number of nanotechnology concepts to two or three
to prevent the audience from feeling overwhelmed with too much information.”
As a result of the study,
Crone has made her frequent nanotechnology talks more interactive and
now includes nano “fun facts” and real-life examples and
analogies that pique audience curiosity and encourage dialog. One particularly
successful example is the statement, “In the time it takes you
to read this sentence, your fingernails will have grown one nanometer.”
Engaging audiences in this
way can elevate their excitement about the topic and encourage deeper
understanding of the discussion, says Castellini. “Such an approach
can lead to a more positive audience attitude about the topics being
covered,” she says.
In the case of nanotechnology,
the researchers learned that public audiences have a fairly neutral
opinion of nanotechnology. “This is actually good news,”
says Castellini. “As public awareness and knowledge of nanotechnology
grows, researchers may be able to avoid overcoming negative opinions
or preconceived notions about the technology. Researchers must be very
careful to build from this neutral starting point and cultivate a positive
public attitude toward nanotechnology.”
Since the 2004 study, other
research groups have published results of similar surveys. However,
the MRSEC paper adds an additional dimension, says Castellini. “Our
paper is unique because it is the first survey we know of that, in addition
to familiarity with nanotechnology, tests the public’s knowledge
of scientific concepts related to nanotechnology,” she says. “The
larger national surveys published in communications journals only assess
knowledge and awareness of nanotechnology.”
The research also is unique
because the paper appears in a publication that targets a scientific
audience, rather than communications researchers, says Crone. “The
one thing this paper does that I believe has not happened previously
is to translate our findings for nanotechnology researchers, so that
they can use this information in giving talks to public audiences,”
she says. “We felt we needed to talk to researchers in a publication
like the Journal of Nanoparticle Research.”
In addition to Castellini
and Crone, other paper authors include Gina K. Walejko,
Carie E. Holladay, Terra J. Theim
and Greta M. Zenner. The Materials Research Science
and Engineering Center is funded via a National Science Foundation grant.
