Reading Passage Two

A The software tools of research are typically more abundant than hardware tools in the social sciences. Software is usually thought of as meaning computer programs that tell the hardware what to do, but any tool not related to a physical device can be considered software. Included in this category are published tests and questionnaires.

B Often researchers want to gather information related to a general area such as personality or intelligence. For these instances, the use of a standardized test may be the best choice. With already published tests you can be sure of both validity and reliability and can save a lot of time that might otherwise be spent on test construction. Standardized tests can be classified into five main categories: achievement, aptitude, interest, personality, and intelligence.

C Achievement tests are designed specifically to measure an individual’s previously learned knowledge or ability. They are available for many topic areas related to psychology, education, business, and other fields. Achievement tests require that prior learning take place and that this learning be demonstrated in order to pass.

D Aptitude tests attempt to predict an individual’s per

formance in some activity at some point in the future. They do not require any specific prior learning although basic knowledge related to reading and writing is usually required and some preparation, such as studying up on math formulas or sentence structure, can be helpful. A well-known example of this type is the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), designed to predict future college performance.

E Interest inventories also require only general knowledge but no preparation is needed. These tests look at an individual’s subjective interests in order to make predictions about some future behavior or activity. Perhaps the most used interest inventory is the Strong Interest Inventory, which compares interests related to specific careers in order to help guide an individual’s career path. Endorsed interests are compared with the interests of successful individuals in various fields and predictions are made regarding the test-taker’s fit with the various career fields.

F Typically designed to assess and diagnose personality and mental health related disorders, personality tests are used extensively by psychologists in clinical, educational, and business related settings. By far the most widely used test of this type is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition (MMPI-2), which compares an individual’s responses on a series of true-false items to those suffering from various mental disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, and anxiety. The theory behind the test argues that if you endorse items similar to the items endorsed by those with depression, for example, then the chances that you are also depressed increases.

G Intelligence tests could be classified as aptitude tests since they are sometimes used to predict future performance. They could also be classified as personality tests since they can be used to diagnose disorders such as learning disabilities and mental retardation. However, because of their limited scope, we will place them in their own category. The purpose of an intelligence test is to attain a summary score or intelligence quotient (IQ) of an individual’s intellectual ability. Scores are compared to each other and can be broken down into different subcategories depending on the intelligence test used. The most commonly used tests of this type are the Wechsler Scales, including the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI).

H Self-response questionnaires are a great way to gather large amounts of information in a relatively short amount of time. A questionnaire, similar to a survey you might see on a web page, allows subjects to respond to questions, rate responses, or offer opinions. Their responses can then be used to place them in specific categories or groups or can be compared to other subjects for data analysis. A concern with self-report, however, is the accuracy of the responses. Unlike direct observation, there is no way of knowing if the subject has told the truth or whether or not the question was understood as intended.

There are several different methods for gathering information on a questionnaire or survey, including a Likert scale, the Thurstone technique, and the semantic differential. The Likert scale is a popular method used in surveys because it allows the researcher to quantify opinion based items. Questions are typically grouped together and rated or responded to based on a five-point scale. This scale typically ranges in order from one extreme to the other, such as (1) very interested; (2) somewhat interested; (3) unsure; (4) not very interested; and (5) not interested at all. Items that might be rated with this scale representing the subject’s level of interest could include a list of careers or academic majors, for example.

Much Ado About Almost Nothing

1 “THE time for discussion of the rights and wrongs of GM crops has passed. Intense and consistent economic sabotage and intimidation are what will make the commercialisation of GM crops an unattractive option.”

2 Words like these, from an article in the current edition of Earth First!, a radical environmental journal, send shivers down the spines of those involved in commercialising biotechnology. The strength of public disapproval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was a shock and a surprise to most of those involved. Now, some people are wondering whether nanotechnology – a term that covers the manipulation of matter at scales of a millionth of a millimetre – could be in for similar treatment and, if so, whether there are lessons that its protagonists can learn from the public backlash against biotechnology.

Profit of doom
3 In a neglected corner, amid thousands of participants at a Nanotech conference held in Boston last week, Jeffrey Matsuura, a law professor at the University of Dayton, in Ohio, stood next to his unprepossessing poster of his work. His warning, however, was pertinent to everyone there – especially the investors who were scouring the conference for opportunities. And this is that several of the factors that created a public backlash against biotechnology are already at work within nanotechnology.

Dr. Matsuura says that biotechnologists assumed that the public would quickly recognise and appreciate biotech’s potential for improving the quality of life. Instead, the risks captured the attention of the media and much of the general public. Well-fed European consumers met the suggestion of cheaper food, in particular, with scepticism. Many felt that the gains would accrue to the companies which had developed GMOs, while the risks of growing and consuming the crops would be taken on by the public.

4 Dr. Matsuura believes that public perception of nanotechnology is developing along a similar track. Like those of biotechnology, the first applications of nanotechnology will bring little obvious benefit to consumers. Better, cheaper materials, and hidden manufacturing efficiencies that benefit producers first, are redolent of the ‘advantages’ of biotech – namely reduced applications of agricultural chemicals, which help to keep the cost down while raising yields. Obvious consumer benefits, such as improvements in medicine, are further away.

5 This should not matter – consumers do benefit eventually, even from cost savings. And yet, in alliance with a feeling that there are hazards involved, an absence of immediate benefits could turn public opinion against nanotech quite rapidly. And potential hazards there are. Concerns over out-of-control, self- replicating ‘nanobots’ that would eventually consume and transform the entire planet into a ‘grey goo’ are absurd. And yet, it is true that novel ‘nanoparticles’ might have real toxicological risks.

6 Nanoparticles are so small that, if inhaled, they could become lodged in the lungs. In theory, they are small enough to enter living cells and accumulate there. And in January Ken Donaldson, a professor of respiratory toxicology at the University of Edinburgh, told a Royal Institution seminar in London that, once inhaled, ultrafine carbon particles can move to the brain and blood.

7 There are already several products that use nanoparticles already on the market, such as sunscreen and car parts. Though all this may sound alarming, people are already exposed to nanoparticles of many different kinds, and have been throughout history. Soot, for example, is composed of carbon nanoparticles. Nevertheless, nanoparticles from sources such as diesel soot, welding fumes and photocopier toner are already associated with ill-health. The prospect of more such particles is likely to worry many. No wonder that several people at the conference in Boston mentioned the need to address public fears over nanotechnology “aggressively”

8 One of these was Clayton Teague, the director of America’s National Nanotechnology Co-ordination Office. He says the American government is as sensitive to any indication of true health risk as any member of the public. Several large and well-funded studies on the environmental and health risks of nanotechnology are now under way.

9 Dr. Teague adds that any decisions about nanotechnology will be made carefully and based on solid scientific data. But even if science gives the go-ahead, another one of Dr. Matsuura’s lessons is that this might not necessarily win the day, and that fear over potential abuses and accidents may dominate the debate.

10 One piece of advice Dr. Matsuura gives is that everyone involved should have a consistent message. If investors are told a technology will change the world, someone who is concerned about the risks cannot then be told that the same technology is no big deal. It strikes a false note to say that something can be both revolutionary and nothing to worry about, he says. Such inconsistencies will breed public mistrust and fear.

Product placement
11 Donald Reed is a senior consultant with Ecos,a business-advisory firm based in Sydney, Australia, that acts as an intermediary between corporations and activists. Mr. Reed goes as far as to recommend that companies think about the early products they choose to pursue – in particular, whether they can demonstrate the “societal value” of these products. For example, it might be worth emphasising that one of the early products of nanotechnology could be cheap and efficient photovoltaic materials, which are used to generate electricity from sunlight.