Can Carbon Nanomaterials Improve CZTS Photovoltaic Devices? Evaluation of Performance and Impacts Using Integrated Life‐Cycle Assessment and Decision Analysis

In emergent photovoltaics, nanoscale materials hold promise for optimizing device characteristics; however, the related impacts remain uncertain, resulting in challenges to decisions on strategic investment in technology innovation. We integrate multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and life‐cycle assessment (LCA) results (LCA‐MCDA) as a method of incorporating values of a hypothetical federal acquisition manager into the assessment of risks and benefits of emerging photovoltaic materials. Specifically, we compare adoption of copper zinc tin sulfide (CZTS) devices with molybdenum back contacts to alternative devices employing graphite or graphene instead of molybdenum. LCA impact results are interpreted alongside benefits of substitution including cost reductions and performance improvements through application of multi‐attribute utility theory. To assess the role of uncertainty we apply Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis. We find that graphene or graphite back contacts outperform molybdenum under most scenarios and assumptions. The use of decision analysis clarifies potential advantages of adopting graphite as a back contact while emphasizing the importance of mitigating conventional impacts of graphene production processes if graphene is used in emerging CZTS devices. Our research further demonstrates that a combination of LCA and MCDA increases the usability of LCA in assessing product sustainability. In particular, this approach identifies the most influential assumptions and data gaps in the analysis and the areas in which either engineering controls or further data collection may be necessary.     

Converging technologies – what future? The views of the science and policy communities

The contention and politicization of knowledge is nothing new but an inherent part of the scientific endeavour. What is new today is that this practice has been institutionalized and transformed into generally accepted practices for monitoring or regulating the production and/or dissemination of novel knowledge. These practices, which include Bioethics Councils or Committees, citizen dialogues or juries, ethical checklists, ex ante risk assessments or ELSA-type accompanying research, have grown exponentially over the last years and have slowly replaced traditional bottom-up forms of mobilization, even within social movements or civil society organizations. Converging technologies presents both old and new challenges for knowledge politics – in view of its uncertain development and inherent risks but also in view of its philosophical agenda and ethical implications. The article reflects on the future effect of discourse and knowledge politics on convergence technologies by considering developments in Austria     

纳米技术与人类道德

纳米技术作为一种新兴的综合性技术，它的发展对人类道德产生了一定冲击，因此有必要对其采取一定的道德控制措施，以达到纳米技术与人类道德的共同进步。     

Debate on nanotechnology in the Swedish daily press 2004–2009

This work presents the results of an on-going project that explores the media debate on nanotechnology in the Swedish daily press. Based on the analysis of articles published between 2004 and 2009 in two national and two regional Swedish daily broadsheets, it examines frames and themes used, the general tone of the articles as well as the actors active in the debate. Results of the analysis show that a positive tone dominates the Swedish coverage, which is mostly focused on future applications of nanotechnology. However, in the final stage of the studied period, the Swedish press started focus more on potential risks of nanotechnology as well as regulatory questions.     

Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions

Currently, there is no mandatory labeling for products containing synthetic nanoparticles. The public as well as other stakeholders have positive views about mandatory labeling. However, little is known how such a label influences the risk and benefit perception of a product. Consumers may infer that a label is a signal that there are risks associated with this technology. Data were collected in a survey experiment (N= 1,382). Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions. The control group received a picture of a sunscreen container without a label. One experimental group received a picture of a sunscreen container with a label. The other groups received, in addition to the sunscreen container with a label, some risk or benefit information. Results suggest that labeling of products may reduce consumers' benefit perception and increase risk perception. Labeling nanotechnology consumer products may change the public perception of the products. Respondents may have relied on the affect heuristic for assessing the risks and benefits of the sunscreen.     

Nano Risk Analysis: Advancing the Science for Nanomaterials Risk Management

Scientists, activists, industry, and governments have raised concerns about health and environmental risks of nanoscale materials. The Society for Risk Analysis convened experts in September 2008 in Washington, DC to deliberate on issues relating to the unique attributes of nanoscale materials that raise novel concerns about health risks. This article reports on the overall themes and findings of the workshop, uncovering the underlying issues for each of these topics that become recurring themes. The attributes of nanoscale particles and other nanomaterials that present novel issues for risk analysis are evaluated in a risk analysis framework, identifying challenges and opportunities for risk analysts and others seeking to assess and manage the risks from emerging nanoscale materials and nanotechnologies. Workshop deliberations and recommendations for advancing the risk analysis and management of nanotechnologies are presented.     

Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public

Using nanotechnology as a case study, this article explores (1) how people's perceptions of benefits and risks are related to their approval of nanotechnology, (2) which information‐processing factors contribute to public risk/benefit perceptions, and (3) whether individuals’ predispositions (i.e., deference to scientific authority and ideology) may moderate the relationship between cognitive processing and risk perceptions of the technology. Results indicate that benefit perceptions positively affect public support for nanotechnology; perceptions of risk tend to be more influenced by systematic processing than by heuristic cues, whereas both heuristic and systematic processing influence benefit perceptions. People who are more liberal‐minded tend to be more affected by systematic processing when thinking about the benefits of nanotechnology than those who are more conservative. Compared to less deferent individuals, those who are more deferent to scientific authority tend to be less influenced by systematic processing when making judgments about the benefits and risks of nanotechnology. Implications are discussed.     

Upstream Oversight Assessment for Agrifood Nanotechnology: A Case Studies Approach

Although nanotechnology is broadly receiving attention in public and academic circles, oversight issues associated with applications for agriculture and food remain largely unexplored. Agrifood nanotechnology is at a critical stage in which informed analysis can help shape funding priorities, risk assessment, and oversight activities. This analysis is designed to help society and policymakers anticipate and prepare for challenges posed by complicated, convergent applications of agrifood nanotechnology. The goal is to identify data, risk assessment, regulatory policy, and engagement needs for overseeing these products so they can be addressed prior to market entry. Our approach, termed upstream oversight assessment (UOA), has potential as a key element of anticipatory governance. It relies on distinct case studies of proposed applications of agrifood nanotechnology to highlight areas that need study and attention. As a tool for preparation, UOA anticipates the types and features of emerging applications; their endpoints of use in society; the extent to which users, workers, ecosystems, or consumers will be exposed; the nature of the material and its safety; whether and where the technologies might fit into current regulatory system(s); the strengths and weaknesses of the system(s) in light of these novel applications; and the possible social concerns related to oversight for them.     

Envisioning emerging nanotechnologies: a three-year panel study of South Carolina citizens

This article reports results from a three-year panel study of a nonrandom sample of 76 South Carolina citizens, recruited from a variety of walks of life, and their impressions of emerging nanotechnology. This discussion focuses on material from depth interviews conducted alongside a baseline opinion and awareness inventory at the beginning of the study, the most intensive data-gathering phase. These results are placed in the context of data from three additional surveys conducted at about equal intervals over the three years, plus exit interviews from 21 of the 34 individuals who completed the entire study. The results give insight into popular thinking about technology but little indication of strong emerging concerns, a trajectory of amplification of those concerns, or opinion polarization over time, despite some awareness of risks and potential ethical dimensions. Nanotechnology may stand out more as an example of risk attenuation than of risk amplification, consistent with most results from national surveys.     

A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks

This study reviewed coverage of nanotechnology risks in 20 U.S. and 9 U.K. newspapers and 2 wire services from 2000 to 2009. It focused on information that citizens could come across in daily newspaper reading that could highlight the salience of these issues and alert readers to potential risks. Few articles about nanotechnology health, environmental, and societal risks were found in these publications during this period, averaging only 36.7 per year for both countries. The coverage emphasized three main narratives over time: runaway technology, science-based studies, and regulation. Health risks were covered most frequently, followed by environmental and societal risk issues. Regulation coverage was not as frequent but increased over time. The majority of the coverage focused on news events and 10 events drew modest media attention. Scientific uncertainty discussions appeared in about half of the articles, and scientists and engineers were the dominant information sources in both countries. Some significant differences between U.S. and U.K. coverage were found: U.K. coverage emphasized more societal concerns, while U.S. coverage paid more attention to environmental risks. Because the volume of coverage was not extensive and was counterbalanced by many more articles extolling nanotechnology's benefits, it is questionable whether this coverage alerted readers about potential nanotechnology risks. Coupled with citizens' minimal knowledge about nanotechnology, this type of coverage could create public distrust of nanotechnology applications should a dangerous risk event occur.