In this article, the authors examine the role of dedicated online biotechnology news providers in disseminating and shaping stories of technological promise within the bioeconomy. In this field, communication of future-orientated claims is closely linked to a firm’s ability to attract speculative investment and so dedicated biotech news services play an important role in facilitating this interaction between technology producers and investors. Using the emerging field of regenerative medicine (RM) as a case study, the authors illustrate how coverage of RM biotechnologies and firms by these online news services acts to increase the intensity of promissory communication and how interaction between news providers can create dominant framings of particular events in which some aspects are emphasized while others are marginalized. Considered cumulatively, the authors show how these accounts ultimately present a highly linear account of technological innovation which renders the actions of multiple technoscientific actors meaningful to investors but at a cost to addressing the local contingencies of scientific research.
AllyseM.2009. “Blame Francis Bacon: The Metaphor of Progress and the Progress of Metaphor in Science.” In Communicating Biological Science: Ethical and Metaphorical Dimensions, edited by NerlichB.Elliott, R.LarsonB.237–44. Aldershot: Ashgate.
2.
BirchK.2006a. “Introduction: Biofutures/Biopresents.”Science as Culture15:173–81.
3.
BirchK.2006b. “The Neoliberal Underpinnings of the Bioeconomy: The Ideological Discourses and Practices of Economic Competitiveness.”Genomics, Society and Policy2:1–15.
4.
BirdE. S.DardenneR. W.. 1988. “Myth, Chronicle and Story: Exploring the Narrative Qualities of News.” In Media, Myths and Narratives: Television and the Press, edited by CareyJ. W.67–85. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
BorupM.BrownN.KonradK.Van LenteH.. 2006. “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology.”Technology Analysis & Strategic Management18:285–98.
6.
BrownN.2003. “Hope Against Hype: Accountability in Biopasts, Presents and Futures.”Science Studies16:3–21.
7.
BrownN.MichaelM.. 2003. “A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects.”Technology Analysis & Strategic Management15:3–18.
8.
BrownN.RappertB.WebsterA., eds. 2000. Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Aldershot. Ashgate.
CookeP.2001. “New Economy Innovation Systems: Biotechnology in Europe and the USA.”Industry and Innovation8:267–89.
11.
CooperM.2006. “Resuscitations: Stem Cells and the Crisis of Old Age.”Body & Society12:1–23.
12.
FortunM.2001. “Mediated Speculations in the Genomics Futures Markets.”New Genetics and Society20:139–56.
13.
GeelsF. W.SmitW. A.. 2000. “Failed Technology Futures: Pitfalls and Lessons from a Historical Survey.”Futures32:867–85.
14.
GeesinkI.PrainsackB.FranklinS.. 2008. “Stem Cell Stories 1998-2008.”Science as Culture17:1–11.
15.
GibbsG.2002. Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations with NVIVO. Milton Keynes: Open University.
16.
HopeW.2009. “Conflicting Temporalities: State, Nation, Economy and Democracy Under Global Capitalism.”Time & Society18:62–85.
17.
KentJ.FaulknerA.GeesinkI.FitzPatrickD.. 2006. “Towards Governance of Human Tissue Engineered Technologies in Europe: Framing the Case for a New Regulatory Regime.”Technological Forecasting and Social Change73:41–60.
18.
KewellB.WebsterA.. 2009. “A Tale of ‘Cautious Pessimism’: Biotechnology, Recession and the ‘New Economy’.”Biotechnology Journal4:1106–10.
19.
KitzingerJ.2008. “Questioning Hype, Rescuing Hope? The Hwang Stem Cell Scandal and the Reassertion of Hopeful Horizons.”Science as Culture17:417–34.
20.
LysaghtM.JaklenecA.DeweerdE.. 2008. “Great Expectations: Private Sector Activity in Tissue Engineering, Regenerative Medicine, and Stem Cell Therapeutics.”Tissue Engineering: Part A14:305–19.
21.
NerlichB.DingwallR.. 2003. “Deciphering the Human Genome: The Semantic and Ideological Foundations of Genetic and Genomic Discourse.” In Cognitive Models in Language and Thought: Ideologies, Metaphors and Meaning, edited by DirvenR.Frank, R.PutzM.396–428. Berlin: Moutoun de Gruyter.
22.
NerlichB.ElliottR.LarsonB.. 2009. “Communicating Biological Sciences: An Introduction.” In Communicating Biological Science: Ethical and Metaphorical Dimensions, edited by NerlichB.Elliott, R.LarsonB.1–23. Aldershot: Ashgate.
23.
PollockN.WilliamsR.. 2010. “The Business of Expectations: How Promissory Organizations Shape Technology and Innovation.”Social Studies of Science40:525–48.
24.
Van LenteH.1993. Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments. Enschede, Netherlands: Proefschrift Universiteit Twente.
25.
VastermanP. L. M.2005. “Media Hype: Self-Reinforcing News Waves, Journalistic Standards and the Construction of Social Problems.”European Journal of Communication20:508–30.
