US Public Opinion about Nanotechnologies used for Human Enhancements

1. US Public Opinion about Nanotechnologies used for Human Enhancements Consensus Conferences, Deliberation and Framing Effects on Risk Perceptions

2. Human Enhancement? Many observers believe that the “converging technologies” of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technologies, and cognitive science (NBIC) could lead to radical and pervasive enhancements of human abilities.

3. Human Enhancement? • Technological convergence will make it theoretically possible to augment the structure, function and capabilities of human bodies and brains. The vision is not simply of disability eliminated and illness cured, but of stronger, faster bodies that out-perform the healthiest and most athletic bodies of today, with brains re-vamped to retain more information and to communicate directly with computers, artificial limbs or with other brains (ETC Group, September 2006, p. 14).

4. Background of two studies I will present data from: • Theory Driven Questions: • Are citizens capable of deliberating? • Are there unavoidable group decision making pathologies? • Empirical Driven Questions: • What do people know? • What does informed opinion look like?

5. Deliberative fears: “worse decisions than would have occurred if no deliberation had taken place” • Citizens say they dislike deliberating. • Deliberations can replicate and exaggerate exiting imbalances of power among individuals. • Affective and Cognitive Pathologies: deliberation excites emotions and polarization cascades emerge.

6. Methods and Data • 2008 NCTF (6 sites across the country; data collected pre and post for over 70 citizens [NSF supported research based at CNS-ASU]) • Why Consensus Conferences? Stakeholders see a need for informed citizen input early in the process of developing such technologies. Indeed, the legislation that authorizes the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (P.L. 108-93) speaks to the importance of public input in decision making about such research and development. • Comparison with 2008 Nationally Representative Opinion Poll; N = 500 (NSF; CNS-ASU).

7. NCTF Summary of Consensus Reports: • Regulatory adequacy. All sites (6 of 6) expressed significant concern about effective regulation of new NBIC technologies. Some sites recommended creating a new regulatory agency specifically charged with managing these technologies, while others recommended strengthening the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). • Public information. All sites (six of six) strongly endorsed programs intended to keep the public informed about developments in human enhancement technologies, including conducting more deliberative panels and including discussions in high school and K-12 education.

8. NCTF Summary of Consensus Reports: • Access & equity. Nearly all the sites (5 of 6) included recommendations that emerging enhancement technologies be made available on an equitable basis to those who need them most. • Funding accountability. Nearly all the sites (5 of 6) recommended that funding be prioritized for the treatment of disease before enhancements and that stakeholders should have a say in research decisions. • Safety. Nearly all the sites (5 of 6) included recommendations for the careful monitoring of enhancement technologies, including the development of international safety standards for them. • Entrepreneurship & development. Nearly all the sites (5 of 6) included recommendations that the development of these technologies should maximize their benefit, and that both public and private investment in these technologies is critical.

9. Polarization Test Example: “What do you think about the risks and benefits of using nanotechnology for human enhancement, such as creating superior performance and longer, healthier lives?”

10. Benefits of Deliberation? • Significant increase in Knowledge (six items plus confidence in correct answers) • Significant increase in Internal Political Efficacy (“I consider myself well qualified to participate in politics”) • Marginally significant increase in general Trust (“Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly just looking out for themselves?”) • A majority of participants preferred consensus over majority voting rules to resolve conflicts.

11. Importance: “How important to you is the issue of enhancing human mental, emotional, and physical abilities?”

12. Risks: “What do you think about the risks and benefits of using nanotechnology for human enhancement?...”

13. Framing of Risk Perceptions: Do you think we should embrace new enhancement technologies to improve humankind or should we avoid playing God with new enhancement technologies?

14. Framing of Risk Perceptions: Do you think we should embrace new enhancement technologies … or should we avoid playing God…?

15. Additional NCTF Findings • Deliberation reduced support for government spending on human enhancements. Before deliberating, participants’ average score was 7.3 on an 11-point scale, where “11” meant they favored dramatically increased government spending and “1” meant dramatically decreased government spending. After deliberating, the average score fell to 6.3.

16. Additional NCTF Findings • Deliberation resulted in opposition to most kinds of hypothetical human enhancements that they were asked about (five). • After deliberating, participants opposed all enhancements except for “implants to catch diseases before they became dangerous”. Before deliberating, participants had also supported “bionic eyes” and were neutral about using nano-wires and implants to communicate with other people or computers. • Respondents remained opposed to “administering drugs to prisoners to prevent escapes.”

17. Additional NCTF Findings • Deliberation increased emotional worry about affording enhancements. Before deliberation 63% were at least somewhat worried that the average family would not be able to afford enhancements; after deliberation, that percentage increased to 76%. • Similarly, before deliberating, 48% of participants were at least somewhat worried that their own family would not be able to afford enhancements; after deliberating, that percentage jumped to 60%.

18. Additional Nationally Representative Poll Findings • When asked about protection from the risks, Americans have the greatest confidence in university scientists protecting the public. They had the lowest confidence in the mass media and government. • People expect human enhancements to be costly but have mixed reactions about how to deal with this. Most people say that only the wealthiest Americans will be able to afford them (64%), and 84% believe government should guarantee equal access should these enhancements become available, but 68% also said individuals, not insurance, should pay for them. • Support is very high for nano human enhancements that appear to improve health: (1) video to brain link to allow artificial eyesight (88%) and (2) medical devices to detect changes in human biomarkers to catch diseases early (84%). Limited support exists for non-health benefits: (1) drugs preventing prisoner escapes (22%), (2) implants to improve performance of soldiers on the battlefield (30%) and (3) brain implants to permit basic computer to brain functions.

19. Conclusions • Contrary to prominent criticisms (especially about consensus deliberations, citizens benefitted: they learned about NBIC technologies, increased their trust in others and their feelings of internal political efficacy. • Panelists generated coherent consensus reports outlining their concerns and recommendation for how government should guide the development trajectory of these emerging technologies. • There was some but not much overlap across the two different sets of data. NCTF informed opinions, for example, sometimes looked similar to the nationally representative data. Other times, however, NCTF prestest opinions were more similar to the nationally representative data. This surprising finding is likely due to the non-representative nature of the NCTF panelists.

20. Implications • Future research needs to examine which kinds of structures of deliberation are necessary to prevent pathologies of group decision making, on different and more polarizing issues, and whether less costly and resource intensive methods of citizen input can also keep decision-making pathologies at bay.