The scientists carried out a telephone survey of 503 randomly selected individuals in the US. Asked to compare nanotechnology with 43 other technologies, those surveyed deemed nanotechnology less risky - but of less benefit - than nuclear power, biotechnology, air travel and police work.
Nanotechnology was seen as more risky and of less benefit than solar power, vaccination and home appliances. Meanwhile asbestos, genetically modified organisms and smoking all won a higher risk and lower benefit rating than nanotechnology.
Stem-cell research came out most similar to nanotechnology in terms of both risk and benefit. But no technologies came out as both lower risk and lower benefit than nanotech.
The researchers, who described the US public as "relatively neutral" towards nanotechnology, believe that "now is the time to educate the public aggressively with facts about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology".
The scientists reckon their survey methods could provide a means of tracking how the public perception of nanotechnology changes over time. They propose the formation of "interagency societal impact subgroups" to coordinate education and public outreach on the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology.
"This information will minimize the likelihood that the public develops polarized perceptions of nanotechnology based on rumour and supposition and hence avoid potential overreactions such as those that occurred with GMO [genetically modified organisms]," said the researchers.
In a separate web survey carried out by the team, 4,542 respondents stated whether they would use a nanotechnology-based drug, skin lotion, car tyre or refrigerator gas coolant. Those surveyed did not consider the risks or benefits of nanotechnology independently. For example, when benefits were low, consumers were more concerned about risks than when benefits were high.
The scientists reported their work in Nature Nanotechnology.