{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012126111560226353, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032336297493936943, 'mean_word_length': 5.381443298969073, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Nanotechnology Debate: Does It Exhibit Social Learning for Controversial Technologies?

Risk controversies have become an inseparable part of contemporary life. The subjects of controversies are diverse, but risk and benefit arguments appear to be similar across cases. Advocates promote new technology through benefit arguments; others raise concerns in regard to its possible risk. Different views become polarised, and often new technology generates a bitter dispute within society. It appears that the same debate is recurring in the case of nanotechnology. This paper examines the social learning process in the case of the nanotechnology debate by comparing it with the nuclear power and GM crops debates. The research consists of an exploratory case study conducted between April and June 2004 in the UK. Qualitative research methods are employed to explore the nature of the nanotechnology debate and to analyse social learning process. Semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders of the nanotechnology debate are triangulated with other sources of data. The Cultural Theory of Risk is used as theoretical framework to chase different viewpoints about the possible risks of nanotechnology and to explore learning process