Government Regulations and Public Health Paper
Paper details

The purpose of this assignment is for you to learn how to summarize and critically evaluate a scientific paper on risk assessment. Read the article from this unit’s

studies, “New Risk or Old Risk, High Risk or No Risk? How Scientists’ Standpoint

Shape their Nanotechnology Risk Frames.”

Once you have read the article, write and submit a 1–2 page summary of the article. Address the following:

Highlight the main points presented in the article. What message is the author trying to convey?
How do these differing views affect environmental health?
What do other sources of information say about these concepts?
Are there discrepancies between the information in the article and information in the unit presentation or the text?
Include a reference to the information presented in the unit presentation and in the text.

ew risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames.
Authors:
Powell MC
Affiliation:
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Source:
Health, Risk & Society (HEALTH RISK SOC), 2007 Jun; 9 (2): 173-90. (52 ref)
Publication Type:
journal article – research
Language:
English
Major Subjects:
Attitude to Risk
Nanotechnology — Adverse Effects
Scientists — United States
Minor Subjects:
Audiorecording; Interview Guides; Interviews; Narratives; United States; Human
Abstract:
This exploratory case study compares risk frames of scientists who are developing new nanotechnologies (upstream scientists) with those of scientists who might later

study the health effects of these technologies (downstream scientists). It is based on a series of in-depth interviews with scientists at a major research university

in the United States. Interviews reveal some substantial differences in risk frames among upstream and downstream scientists – many of which center on whether or not

nanotechnologies and nanomaterials are perceived as ‘new’. Most upstream scientists said they do not think nanotechnologies pose new or substantial risks, while most

downstream scientists said they are worried that they may pose new, unforeseen, and possibly substantial risks. Upstream scientists are less likely than downstream

scientists to think that concerns about potential nanotechnology risks are based on valid science and tend to consider a narrower range of uncertainties. Interviews

suggest that these risk and uncertainty frames are influenced by contrasting disciplinary backgrounds, information exposures, and interdisciplinary interactions.

Findings suggest that more comprehensive nanotechnology risk policies might be developed if a wider variety of different kinds of scientists – including downstream

scientists – are involved in upstream nanotechnology development and policymaking.
Journal Subset:
Biomedical; Double Blind Peer Reviewed; Europe; Online/Print; Peer Reviewed; Public Health; UK & Ireland
Special Interest:
Public Health