IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v51y2025i6p1015-1027..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of public perceptions on nanotechnology regulation in Costa Rica

Author

Listed:
  • José Vega-Baudrit
  • Melissa Camacho
  • Andrea Araya
  • Hannia León

Abstract

This study investigates the perspectives of individuals, primarily Costa Ricans, on the necessity of implementing regulations for nanotechnology. Through a survey-based methodology, our findings reveal that approximately 98 per cent of respondents consider such regulation essential. The consensus on the need for regulation is significantly influenced by age, occupation, and field of expertise. Participants predominantly identified the health and environmental sectors as those most likely to benefit from advancements in nanotechnology. Despite the widespread agreement on the necessity for regulation, there was a divergence of opinion regarding which institution should oversee these regulations, with the National Nanotechnology Laboratory (LANOTEC) at the High Technology National Center (CENAT) being the most frequently chosen. This study underscores the importance of establishing regulatory frameworks for nanotechnology in Costa Rica. However, it also highlights the need for broader discussions to determine the most effective regulatory practices and the most appropriate institution for their implementation and oversight.

Suggested Citation

  • José Vega-Baudrit & Melissa Camacho & Andrea Araya & Hannia León, 2025. "Evaluation of public perceptions on nanotechnology regulation in Costa Rica," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(6), pages 1015-1027.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2025:i:6:p:1015-1027.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scae042
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2025:i:6:p:1015-1027.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.