Me a
Media Analysis and S akeholde In ol emen
B inging Sa e-and-Sus ainable-by-Design o he public –
explo ing s akeholde s’ conce ns and needs owa ds nano echnologies
Jan Hildeb and1, S e anie P enne 2*, Cai lin Ahe n3 and Bea iz Al a o3
1 Ins i u e o Fu u e Ene gy and Ma e ial Flow Sys ems, IZES gGmbH, Ge many; 2BRIMATECH Se ices GmbH, Aus ia
3BNN - BioNanoNe Fo schungsgesellscha mbH, Aus ia
* E-mail add ess o p esen ing au ho : [email p o ec ed]
Objec i es
Nanoma e ials o e g ea po en ial o esea ch and indus y, bu bo h public awa eness and he socie al pe cep ion o hese ma e ials emain limi ed and unde explo ed. Al hough
applica ions in a eas such as cosme ics, medicine, o elec onics a e inc easingly de eloped unde a Sa e-and-Sus ainable-by-Design (SSbD) app oach, unde s anding o
nano echnology and nano-p oduc s among he gene al public is s ill low (e.g., Kidd e al., 2020; Sa e ield e al., 2009). In his ega d, se e al key aspec s a e impo an o conside :
▸Public accep abili y is a ele an p econdi ion o he di usion o inno a i e echnologies and p oduc s
▸Pe cep ions a e shaped by di e en ac o s such as pe cei ed cos -bene i a ios o conce ns abou isks o heal h o he en i onmen
▸Di e en iews wi hin he nano echnology expe communi y exis ; academics and indus y see mo e bene i s, while NGOs emphasize mo e isks (La sson e al., 2017)
Based on hese insigh s, his wo k aims o p o ide a comp ehensi e unde s anding o he key ac o s in luencing he social pe cep ion and accep ance o Mul i-Componen
Nanoma e ials (MCNMs) and High Aspec Ra io Nanoma e ials (HARNs) ac oss s akeholde g oups including he gene al public, indus y, and media. I ocuses on iden i ying c i e ia
o ensu ing social sus ainabili y, s eng hening public awa eness, and p omo ing he esponsible and sus ainable de elopmen o nanoma e ials.
A mul i-me hod app oach was used o examine ele an ac o s on public and s akeholde s’
pe cep ions. Fi s , a mul i-le el media analysis in Ge many explo ed he socie al discou se
on nanoma e ials, di e en ac o g oups, and ac o s o public accep ance. This analysis
co e ed da a om newspape a icles (N=272), semi-scien i ic magazine a icles (N=99),
and on he social media le el use commen s om YouTube ideos (N=13) on
nano echnology ad ancemen s. Following, expe in e iews and a pedes ian su ey in
Ge many (N=34) we e conduc ed o p epa e o an expe wo kshop (N=20), which ocused
on he po en ial and challenges o public us owa ds nanoma e ials, using sunsc eens as
a use case (DIAGONAL p ojec demons a o ). In addi ion, a su ey along s akeholde s in
nano echnologies was conduc ed o complemen he indings.
Media discou ses on accep ance ac o s
The esul s unde line he need o ongoing e o s o s eng hen public engagemen by b oadening media co e age and enhancing
social media ou each. Building in o med, c i ical, and us -based dialogue a ound eme ging nano echnologies is essen ial o os e
public accep ance. Awa eness o MCNMs and HARNs emains limi ed, wi h us in science, anspa en communica ion, and educa ion
iden i ied as c i ical ac o s. The e o e, a ge ed ools, such as he NanoQuiz, a e equi ed o e ec i ely "b ing SSbD o he public."
REFERENCES:
[1] Kidd, J. W., Wes e ho , P., Mayna d, A. (2020). Public pe cep ions o he use o nanoma e ials o
in-home d inking wa e pu i ica ion de ices. NanoImpac , 100220.
[2] Sa e ield, T. K., Kandlika , M., Beaud ie, C.E.H., Con i, J., Ha ho n, B.H. (2009). An icipa ing he
pe cei ed isk o nano echnologies. Na u e Nano echnology, 11, A . 11.
[3] La sson, S. B., Boholm, Å., Jansson, M. (2017). A i udes owa ds nanoma e ials and nano echnology
among Swedish expe s akeholde s: Risk, bene i and egula ion. Go henbu g: GRI- appo .
Me hods
Rama
Resul s
Fig. 1: Concep ual amewo k showing ac o g oups, mode a o s, and accep ance ac o s.
Media analysis o newspape s, semi-scien i ic magazines, and social media (2023)
▸Peak media co e age in 2013–2017, decline in ecen yea s.
▸Mainly desc ip i e epo ing, lacking discussions on socie al implica ions.
▸Emphasis on b eak h oughs and ad ancemen s, wi h c i icism on p ac ical applica ion being " a om applica ion”.
▸Semi-scien i ic magazine eade s we e in o med mo e abou he po en ial and bene i s o nanoma e ials compa ed o
na ional newspape eade s.
▸Mos a i udes owa ds nano echnology we e scep ical, bu mixed emo ions ( ascina ion, hope, ea ) we e s ill ound.
▸Rele ance o emo ional esponses becomes e iden .
Public us owa ds nanoma e ials in sunsc eens
Pedes ian su ey in wo Ge man ci ies (Saa b ücken & Aachen, Ge many 2023)
▸Knowledge: 71% had limi ed o no knowledge o nano echnology; only 8.6% had high o conside able knowledge.
▸Buying decisions: D i en mainly by sun p o ec ion le el (24.6%), p ice (13.2%), and ecommenda ions (11–11.4%).
▸Sou ces o in o ma ion: Labels (15.7%), iends/ amily (14.6%), social media (12.4%), heal hca e p o essionals (12.4%),
o ums (11.2%), newspape s (9%), scien i ic a icles (7.9%).
▸Eco- iendly labels: 42% pay a en ion o hese labels, 37% somewha , 14% do no pay a en ion, 5% unawa e.
▸P e e ence o "nano- ee" p oduc s: 45% neu al, 22% e y likely o buy a “nano- ee” p oduc , 17% somewha likely.
Fig. 2: Cogni i e and a ec i e a i udes in YouTube commen s.
In e es ing “pai s”: skep icism s. ascina ion, ea . s. hope
Fig. 3: Selec ed esul s o he pedes ian su ey.
S akeholde s’ conce ns and needs
,
Public discou se on nano echnology
▸Enhance science communica ion, p omo e ci izen science, and es ablish mul i-s akeholde nanodialogues.
▸In es in educa ion, ocusing on ea ly-s age cu icula and accessible ma e ials.
▸Expand social media ou each ia pla o ms like YouTube and collabo a ions wi h in luence s.
▸S eamline scien i ic communica ion, add essing mis akes anspa en ly o build c edibili y.
▸Fos e public engagemen h ough inclusi e wo kshops and e en s.
▸S eng hen s uc u al us by ensu ing anspa ency in unding and policy de elopmen .
Fig. 4: Wo d Cloud o main pe cei ed obs acles o nanoma e ials.
Public engagemen quiz
In e ac i e in-pe son s akeholde wo kshop, Vienna, 2024
▸T anspa en , e idence-based communica ion is c i ical o os e public us ; misin o ma ion ia social media emains a majo
ba ie .
▸Scien is s and heal h p o essionals a e he p ima y us ed ac o s, ollowed by NGOs and egula o y bodies.
▸Risk pe cep ion, cul u al ac o s, and pandemic- ela ed skep icism signi ican ly in luence public a i udes owa d
nanoma e ials.
▸T us hie a chies show highe us in science, mode a e us in egula o s and NGOs, and low us in media and indus y.
Recom-
menda ions
Conclusions
This p ojec has ecei ed unding om he Eu opean
Union’s Ho izon 2020 esea ch and inno a ion
p og amme unde g an ag eemen no. 953152.
