Barbara Herr Harthorn

Toward Spatially Integrated Social Science

This article outlines the motivation for a spatial approach as a novel focus for cross-disciplinary interaction and research in the social and behavioral sciences. The authors review the emerging interest in space and place in the recent social science literature and develop a vision for a spatially integrated social science. This vision provides the conceptual basis for a program of six activities designed to promote a spatial perspective: learning resources, workshops, best-practice examples, place-based search, software tools, and a virtual community. The six programs will be informed by advances in the methods, technologies, and principles underlying spatial information science.

The recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of mental disorders by primary care physicians

A valid and reliable vignette-based measure of DSM-III psychiatric diagnostic knowledge was administered to practicing primary care physicians (PCPs; generally, internal and family practice medicine) and mental health professionals (MHPs, in psychiatry and psychology). Recognition, diagnosis, and treatment recommendations were measured for 14 different disorders. Contrary to other reports, PCPs consistently recognized the presence of mental disorder and did so virtually as well as MHPs, although both PCPs and MHPs showed more under-recognition than over-recognition. Diagnostic accuracy, however, was substantially lower, with that of MHPs exceeding PCPs for the general classes of affective, anxiety, somatic, and personality disorders, but not for the organic disorders. In making specific diagnoses, significantly fewer PCPs than MHPs gave an accurate diagnosis for eight of the 14 disorders: dysthymic disorder, major depression with psychotic features, agoraphobia with panic attacks (marginally), generalized anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder with anxious mood (marginally), psychologic factors affecting physical condition, and two personality disorders. Overall, PCPs were most accurate in identifying organic disorders (81% correct), least accurate in identifying the personality disorders (14%), and intermediate in identifying the affective (47%), anxiety (49%), and somatic disorders (49%). In most cases, both PCPs and MHPs preferred referral to treatment in primary care, but more PCPs than MHPs recommended treatment in primary care for certain anxiety and somatic disorders. Some differences in the recommended use of antidepressants in primary care were also found. Implications for the provision of mental health care by primary care physicians are discussed.

Nanotoxicology: characterizing the scientific literature, 2000-2007.

Understanding the toxicity of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products is important for human and environmental health and safety as well as public acceptance. Assessing the state of knowledge about nanotoxicology is an important step in promoting comprehensive understanding of the health and environmental implications of these new materials. To this end, we employed bibliometric techniques to characterize the prevalence and distribution of the current scientific literature. We found that the nano-toxicological literature is dispersed across a range of disciplines and sub-fields; focused on in vitro testing; often does not specify an exposure pathway; and tends to emphasize acute toxicity and mortality rather than chronic exposure and morbidity. Finally, there is very little research on consumer products, particularly on their environmental fate, and most research is on the toxicity of basic nanomaterials. The implications for toxicologists, regulators and social scientists studying nanotechnology and society are discussed.

Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices

Current research on the nanotechnology industry indicates its downstream expansion at a rapid pace, while toxicological research and best practices for environmental health and safety are still being developed. Companies that use and/or produce engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) have enormous potential to influence safe-handling practices for ENMs across the product life cycle. Knowledge of both industry practices and leaders’ perceptions of risk is vital for understanding how companies will act to control potential environmental and health risks. This article reports results from a new international survey of nanomaterials companies in 14 countries. In this survey, company participants reported relatively high levels of uncertainty and/or perceived risk with regard to ENMs. However, these perspectives were not accompanied by expected risk-avoidant practices or preferences for regulatory oversight. A majority of companies indicated “lack of information” as a significant impediment to implementing nano-specific safety practices, but they also reported practices that were inconsistent with widely available guidance. Additionally, in the absence of safe-handling regulations, companies reported nano-specific health and safety programs that were narrow in scope. Taken together, these findings indicate that health and safety guidance is not reaching industry. While industry leaders’ reluctance toward regulation might be expected, their own reported unsafe practices and recognition of possible risks suggest a more top-down approach from regulators is needed to protect workers and the environment.

Implementation of a multidisciplinary approach to solve complex nano EHS problems by the UC center for the environmental implications of nanotechnology

UC CEIN was established with funding from the US National Science Foundation and the US Environmental Protection Agency in 2008 with the mission to study the impact of nanotechnology on the environment, including the identification of hazard and exposure scenarios that take into consideration the unique physicochemical properties of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). Since its inception, the Center has made great progress in assembling a multidisciplinary team to develop the scientific underpinnings, research, knowledge acquisition, education and outreach that is required for assessing the safe implementation of nanotechnology in the environment. In this essay, the development of the infrastructure, protocols, and decision-making tools that are required to effectively integrate complementary scientific disciplines allowing knowledge gathering in a complex study area that goes beyond the traditional safety and risk assessment protocols of the 20th century is outlined. UC CEINs streamlined approach, premised on predictive hazard and exposure assessment methods, high-throughput discovery platforms and environmental decision-making tools that consider a wide range of nano/bio interfaces in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, demonstrates the implementation of a 21st-century approach to the safe implementation of nanotechnology in the environment.

Expert Views on Regulatory Preparedness for Managing the Risks of Nanotechnologies

The potential and promise of nanotechnologies depends in large part on the ability for regulatory systems to assess and manage their benefits and risks. However, considerable uncertainty persists regarding the health and environmental implications of nanomaterials, hence the capacity for existing regulations to meet this challenge has been widely questioned. Here we draw from a survey (N=254) of US-based nano-scientists and engineers, environmental health and safety scientists, and regulatory scientists and decision-makers, to ask whether nano experts regard regulatory agencies as prepared for managing nanomaterial risks. We find that all three expert groups view regulatory agencies as unprepared. The effect is strongest for regulators themselves, and less so for scientists conducting basic, applied, or health and safety work on nanomaterials. Those who see nanotechnology risks as novel, uncertain, and difficult to assess are particularly likely to see agencies as unprepared. Trust in regulatory agencies, views of stakeholder responsibility regarding the management of risks, and socio-political values were also found to be small but significant drivers of perceived agency preparedness. These results underscore the need for new tools and methods to enable the assessment of nanomaterial risks, and to renew confidence in regulatory agencies’ ability to oversee their growing use and application in society.

The diagnostic knowledge inventory: a measure of knowledge about psychiatric diagnosis

A psychometrically sound measure of knowledge of psychiatric disorders and diagnoses (consistent with both DSM-III and DSM-III-R) was constructed for use by mental health and health care professionals. No such measure otherwise exists, in spite of its potential value as an educational tool and in research on clinical diagnosis. The diagnostic accuracy (content validity) of a large item pool of brief case vignettes was verified in a prestudy by a team of experts. This item pool then was reduced by half, and two forms of the measure were constructed based on an item analysis that used a heterogeneous sample of clinically trained and untrained respondents (Study 1). Reliability and validity were demonstrated using a cross-validation sample (Study 2). Finally, comparisons were made between practicing mental health professionals and controls; these supported the measures validity (Study 3). Overall, the measure demonstrated concurrent validity (by distinguishing clinically trained from untrained respondents) and reliability (by showing internal consistency and inter-form association). Potential uses of the measure in research and training concerned with clinical diagnosis are discussed.

Forging New Connections Between Nanoscience and Society in the UCSB Center for Nanotechnology in Society Science and Engineering Fellows Program

As authorized by the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs) are mandated to develop a skilled workforce and support responsible development of nanotechnology, including attention to ethical, legal and societal implications (ELSI). An NSEC, the National Science Foundation Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California, Santa Barbara addresses both of these goals within the context of its Science and Engineering Fellows Program. By placing doctoral students from science and engineering disciplines in team-based social science projects focused on ELSI, this program forges closer ties between laboratory scientists and social perspectives. This chapter offers an overview of the program, describes how Fellows were integrated into two specific research streams, and shares analysis of interviews with Fellows. These interviews, conducted as part of an evaluation of the program, provide evidence that the Science and Engineering Fellows Program has fostered in its graduates the sort of reflexivity called for by advocates of responsible innovation.

Nanotechnologies in Societal Context

This chapter provides an overview of the past decade of research on the societal aspects and implications of nanotechnology in the USA. It starts by providing key terms and definitions and then outlines the contours of the social, ethical, governance, and participatory research in the USA, with key examples of nanoELSI work. The chapter argues that all these elements are different facets of responsible development and responsible innovation, and that the National Nanotechnology Initiatives investment in nanoELSI research, education and outreach has provided an unprecedented advance in scholarship and policy. The chapter proposes that nanoELSI has in some respects developed new forms of hybrid social science, ethics, historical, legal, sociological, psychological interdisciplinarity in addition to the interdisciplinary collaborations that form the basis of much nanoscale science and engineering innovation. Integration of the societal and the technical is an ongoing challenge, and the chapter cites some notable advances in this area as well.

Power and Vulnerability: Contextualizing “Low Risk” Views of Environmental and Health Hazards

Abstract Research has found a subgroup of conservative white males have lower perceptions of risk across a variety of environmental and health hazards. Less research has looked at the views of these “low risk” individuals in group interactions. Through qualitative analysis of a technology deliberation, we note that white men expressing low risk views regarding technologies for energy and the environment also often express high social risks around potential loss of control. We argue these risk perceptions reflect identification with corporate concerns, usually framed in opposition to government and mirroring arguments made by conservative organizations. We situate these views within the broader cultural struggle over who has the power to name and address risks.