Bringing Safe-and-Sustainable-by-Design to the public – exploring stakeholders' concerns and needs towards nanotechnologies

Meta Media Analysis and Stakeholder Involvement Bringing Safe-and-Sustainable-by-Design to the public – exploring stakeholders’ concerns and needs towards nanotechnologies Jan Hildebrand1, Stefanie Prenner2*, Caitlin Ahern3 and Beatriz Alfaro3 1 Institute for Future Energy and Material Flow Systems, IZES gGmbH, Germany; 2BRIMATECH Services GmbH, Austria 3BNN - BioNanoNet Forschungsgesellschaft mbH, Austria * E-mail address of presenting author: [email protected] Objectives Nanomaterials offer great potential for research and industry, but both public awareness and the societal perception of these materials remain limited and underexplored. Although applications in areas such as cosmetics, medicine, or electronics are increasingly developed under a Safe-and-Sustainable-by-Design (SSbD) approach, understanding of nanotechnology and nano-products among the general public is still low (e.g., Kidd et al., 2020; Satterfield et al., 2009). In this regard, several key aspects are important to consider: ▸Public acceptability is a relevant precondition for the diffusion of innovative technologies and products ▸Perceptions are shaped by different factors such as perceived cost-benefit ratios or concerns about risks to health or the environment ▸Different views within the nanotechnology expert community exist; academics and industry see more benefits, while NGOs emphasize more risks (Larsson et al., 2017) Based on these insights, this work aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the key factors influencing the social perception and acceptance of Multi-Component Nanomaterials (MCNMs) and High Aspect Ratio Nanomaterials (HARNs) across stakeholder groups including the general public, industry, and media. It focuses on identifying criteria for ensuring social sustainability, strengthening public awareness, and promoting the responsible and sustainable development of nanomaterials. A multi-method approach was used to examine relevant factors on public and stakeholders’ perceptions. First, a multi-level media analysis in Germany explored the societal discourse on nanomaterials, different actor groups, and factors of public acceptance. This analysis covered data from newspaper articles (N=272), semi-scientific magazine articles (N=99), and on the social media level user comments from YouTube videos (N=13) on nanotechnology advancements. Following, expert interviews and a pedestrian survey in Germany (N=34) were conducted to prepare for an expert workshop (N=20), which focused on the potential and challenges of public trust towards nanomaterials, using sunscreens as a use case (DIAGONAL project demonstrator). In addition, a survey along stakeholders in nanotechnologies was conducted to complement the findings. Media discourses on acceptance factors The results underline the need for ongoing efforts to strengthen public engagement by broadening media coverage and enhancing social media outreach. Building informed, critical, and trust-based dialogue around emerging nanotechnologies is essential to foster public acceptance. Awareness of MCNMs and HARNs remains limited, with trust in science, transparent communication, and education identified as critical factors. Therefore, targeted tools, such as the NanoQuiz, are required to effectively "bring SSbD to the public." REFERENCES: [1] Kidd, J. W., Westerhoff, P., Maynard, A. (2020). Public perceptions for the use of nanomaterials for in-home drinking water purification devices. NanoImpact, 100220. [2] Satterfield, T. K., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C.E.H., Conti, J., Harthorn, B.H. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 11, Art. 11. [3] Larsson, S. B., Boholm, Å., Jansson, M. (2017). Attitudes towards nanomaterials and nanotechnology among Swedish expert stakeholders: Risk, benefit and regulation. Gothenburg: GRI-rapport. Methods Rama Results Fig. 1: Conceptual framework showing actor groups, moderators, and acceptance factors. Media analysis of newspapers, semi-scientific magazines, and social media (2023) ▸Peak media coverage in 2013–2017, decline in recent years. ▸Mainly descriptive reporting, lacking discussions on societal implications. ▸Emphasis on breakthroughs and advancements, with criticism on practical application being "far from application”. ▸Semi-scientific magazine readers were informed more about the potential and benefits of nanomaterials compared to national newspaper readers. ▸Most attitudes towards nanotechnology were sceptical, but mixed emotions (fascination, hope, fear) were still found. ▸Relevance of emotional responses becomes evident. Public trust towards nanomaterials in sunscreens Pedestrian survey in two German cities (Saarbrücken & Aachen, Germany 2023) ▸Knowledge: 71% had limited to no knowledge of nanotechnology; only 8.6% had high or considerable knowledge. ▸Buying decisions: Driven mainly by sun protection level (24.6%), price (13.2%), and recommendations (11–11.4%). ▸Sources of information: Labels (15.7%), friends/family (14.6%), social media (12.4%), healthcare professionals (12.4%), forums (11.2%), newspapers (9%), scientific articles (7.9%). ▸Eco-friendly labels: 42% pay attention to these labels, 37% somewhat, 14% do not pay attention, 5% unaware. ▸Preference for "nano-free" products: 45% neutral, 22% very likely to buy a “nano-free” product, 17% somewhat likely. Fig. 2: Cognitive and affective attitudes in YouTube comments. Interesting “pairs”: skepticism vs. fascination, fear. vs. hope Fig. 3: Selected results of the pedestrian survey. Stakeholders’ concerns and needs , Public discourse on nanotechnology ▸Enhance science communication, promote citizen science, and establish multi-stakeholder nanodialogues. ▸Invest in education, focusing on early-stage curricula and accessible materials. ▸Expand social media outreach via platforms like YouTube and collaborations with influencers. ▸Streamline scientific communication, addressing mistakes transparently to build credibility. ▸Foster public engagement through inclusive workshops and events. ▸Strengthen structural trust by ensuring transparency in funding and policy development. Fig. 4: Word Cloud of main perceived obstacles for nanomaterials. Public engagement quiz Interactive in-person stakeholder workshop, Vienna, 2024 ▸Transparent, evidence-based communication is critical to foster public trust; misinformation via social media remains a major barrier. ▸Scientists and health professionals are the primary trusted actors, followed by NGOs and regulatory bodies. ▸Risk perception, cultural factors, and pandemic-related skepticism significantly influence public attitudes toward nanomaterials. ▸Trust hierarchies show higher trust in science, moderate trust in regulators and NGOs, and low trust in media and industry. Recommendations Conclusions This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 953152.