News: Religious 'shun nanotechnology'.
Ye Old One
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7767192.stm
Attitudes to nanotechnology may be determined by religious and
cultural beliefs, suggest researchers writing in the journal Nature
Nanotechnology.
They say religious people tend to view nanotechnology in a negative
light.
The researchers compared attitudes in Europe and the US and looked at
religious and cultural backgrounds.
They say the findings have implications for scientists and politicians
making policy decisions to regulate the use of nanotechnology.
'Religiosity'
The researchers compared attitudes to nanotechnology in 12 European
countries and the US.
They then rated each country on a scale of what they called
"religiosity" - a measure of how religious each country was.
They found that countries where religious belief was strong, such as
Ireland and Italy, tended to be the least accepting of nanotechnology,
whereas those where religion was less significant such as Belgium or
the Netherlands were more accepting of the technology.
Professor Dietram Scheufele from the Department of Life Sciences
Communication at the University of Wisconsin, who led the research,
said religious belief exerted a strong influence on how people viewed
nanotechnology.
"Religion provides a perceptual filter, highly religious people look
at information differently, it follows from the way religion provides
guidance in people's everyday lives," he said.
The US was found to be the most religious country in the survey, and
also the least accepting of nanotechnology.
Cultural beliefs
The researchers say it is understandable that there would be a
conflict between religious belief and nanotechnology, especially when
looking at what they call "nano-bio-info-cogno" (NBIC) technologies,
the potential to create life at a nano scale without divine
intervention.
"It's not that they're concerned about not understanding the science,
more that talking openly about constructing life raises a whole host
of moral issues," said Professor Scheufele.
"It is not a study about what religions or believers think about
nanotechnology, but about the influence of religiosity on views of
nanotechnology. Indeed what it measures as the national 'religiosity'
of different countries seems odd compared with my experience of
working with several of the countries on issues of religious belief
and technology," said Dr Donald Bruce, a technology consultant.
"A second major concern is what is meant by the term 'nanotechnology'.
It has been apparent for several years in public engagement with
nanotechnologies that to ask the someone if 'nanotechnology is morally
acceptable' is largely meaningless, because 'nano' can be as varied as
the technology to which its innovations are applied."
A similar study in the US looked at attitudes to nanotechnology and
wider cultural and political beliefs.
People were asked about their views on a range of subjects, including
risk from the internet, genetically modified food, nuclear power and
mad cow disease.
Broadly, if they thought these were risky, they thought nanotechnology
was too.
The researchers say their finding support the idea that underlying
cultural beliefs have a stronger influence on opinions formed about
nanotechnology than science based information about its potential and
pitfalls.
Professor Scheufele says the findings have implications for
policymakers trying to regulate nanotechnology.
"How do we regulate something where we have different moral ideas from
the public?
"We need to get to grips with the idea that the exact same piece of
information can have a different meaning to different people, its the
age-old dilemma for science about what could be done versus what
should be done."
--
Bob.
Robert Carnegie
if the researchers were talking specifically about a Frankensteinian
invention of a new kind of nanotechnology life-form, which presumably
would wipe out everything else alive on this planet, only the
religious-minded are particularly against that. Indeed Christians
supposedly are looking forward eagerly to the end of the world.
Vend
> Religious 'shun nanotechnology'
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7767192.stm
>
> Attitudes to nanotechnology may be determined by religious and
> cultural beliefs, suggest researchers writing in the journal Nature
> Nanotechnology.
>
> They say religious people tend to view nanotechnology in a negative
> light.
>
> The researchers compared attitudes in Europe and the US and looked at
> religious and cultural backgrounds.
>
> They say the findings have implications for scientists and politicians
> making policy decisions to regulate the use of nanotechnology.
>
> 'Religiosity'
>
> The researchers compared attitudes to nanotechnology in 12 European
> countries and the US.
>
> They then rated each country on a scale of what they called
> "religiosity" - a measure of how religious each country was.
>
> They found that countries where religious belief was strong, such as
> Ireland and Italy, tended to be the least accepting of nanotechnology,
> whereas those where religion was less significant such as Belgium or
> the Netherlands were more accepting of the technology.
Broken method: they should have measured acceptance of nanotechnology
and religiosity individually.
> Professor Dietram Scheufele from the Department of Life Sciences
> Communication at the University of Wisconsin, who led the research,
> said religious belief exerted a strong influence on how people viewed
> nanotechnology.
"Correlation means causation" fallacy.
<snip flawed comments>
(M)-adman
huh?
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Robert Carnegie
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> Well, hands up who does trust scientists. I'm mildly surprised that
> >> if the researchers were talking specifically about a Frankensteinian
> >> invention of a new kind of nanotechnology life-form, which presumably
> >> would wipe out everything else alive on this planet, only the
> >> religious-minded are particularly against that. Indeed Christians
> >> supposedly are looking forward eagerly to the end of the world.
>
> huh?
If "huh?" is for the part about Christians, it's the Apocalypse. You
know, like in the "Left Behind" books, and Ragnarok. And ultimately a
new heaven and new earth. But the end of /this/ world first.
But a lot of Christians /don't/ seriously believe in that, I'll admit.
(M)-adman
It is not just Christains that believe that. Many cultures believe there have been prior "eons"
or ages, and that there will be another one. Which means this one has to come to an end.
Robert Carnegie
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 6:25 pm, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>>> Well, hands up who does trust scientists. I'm mildly surprised that
> >>>> if the researchers were talking specifically about a
> >>>> Frankensteinian invention of a new kind of nanotechnology
> >>>> life-form, which presumably would wipe out everything else alive
> >>>> on this planet, only the religious-minded are particularly against
> >>>> that. Indeed Christians supposedly are looking forward eagerly to
> >>>> the end of the world.
>
> >> huh?
>
> > If "huh?" is for the part about Christians, it's the Apocalypse. You
> > know, like in the "Left Behind" books, and Ragnarok. And ultimately a
> > new heaven and new earth. But the end of /this/ world first.
>
> > But a lot of Christians /don't/ seriously believe in that, I'll admit.
>
> It is not just Christains that believe that. Many cultures believe there have been prior "eons"
> or ages, and that there will be another one. Which means this one has to come to an end.
I don't know about "many". Hindus, I guess. Ragnarok is a bit of a
cheat to mention, I admit, because while there is a rebirth in some
versions of the story, it may be a Christian addition. Regardless,
it's quite perverse to looklforward to the end of the world, even if
it's only one "eon" amongst many.
JennyB
Not so much a case of not believing, as not getting why anyone should
try to hurry it up, given the NT warnings on the subject. I'm not sure
that, when the time comes, I shall be able to tell whether Jesus has
come or called, or whether it should make any difference if I could.