Increasingly, scientists and policy makers have come to recognize that if nanotechnologies are to achieve wide public acceptance, it is essential to engage publics during the early phase of technology development. The media, situated at the interface between scientists and lay publics, possess the potential to play a significant role in public engagement in this field. This article, drawing on data from a recent survey and interview-based study, examines how scientists perceive and evaluate the production and coverage of news on nanotechnologies. Scientists acknowledged the significance of the media in shaping public perceptions of nanotechnologies and saw a role for the media in public engagement efforts. Most had criticisms of media coverage and offered suggestions as to how it could be improved. However, their comments often revealed a one-dimensional conception of science mediation that overlooked the influence of their own claims. Any efforts to enrich public dialogue about nanotechnologies must endeavor to advance understanding among scientists about the operations of the media and their own role in news production.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allan, S. ( 2002) Media, Risk and Science. Buckingham : Open University Press.
2.
Allan, S., Anderson, A. and Petersen, A. ( 2005) "Reporting Risk: Science Journalism and the Prospect of Human Cloning," in S. Watson and A. Moran (eds) Risk, Trust and Uncertainty , pp. 165-80. London: Palgrave.
3.
Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A. and Wilkinson, C. ( 2005) "The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press," Science Communication27(2): 200-20.
4.
Brown, T.L. ( 2003) Making Truth: Metaphors in Science. Urbana and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
5.
Bucchi, M. ( 1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London and New York : Routledge.
6.
Conrad, P. ( 1999) "Use of Expertise: Sources, Quotes, and Voice in the Reporting of Genetics in the News," Public Understanding of Science8(4): 285-302.
7.
Dunwoody, S. ( 1999) "Scientists, Journalists, and the Meaning of Uncertainty ," in S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody and C.L. Rogers (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science (1), pp. 59-80. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Dunwoody, S. and Ryan, M. ( 1985) "Scientific Barriers to the Popularisation of Science in the Mass Media," Journal of Communication35: 26-42.
9.
Durant, J., Hansen, A. and Bauer, M. ( 1996) "Public Understanding of the New Genetics," in T. Marteau and M. Richards (eds) The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Genetics, pp. 235-48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Faber, B. ( 2005) "Popularizing Nanoscience: The Public Rhetoric of Nanotechnology, 1986-1999." URL: http://people.clarkson.edu/~faber/pubs/nano.tech.tcq.3.0.doc
12.
Fells, I. ( 1994) "20 Seconds, Professor and No Long Words," Science and Public Awareness (Spring): 33-7.
13.
Friedman, S. and Egolf, B. ( 2005) "Nanotechnology in the US and British Mass Media," paper presented at the International Association for Science, Technology and Society Meeting, 11 February, Baltimore, MD.
14.
Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J. and Veltri, G. ( 2005) "Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States," Public Understanding of Science14(1): 81-90.
15.
Gibson, I. ( 2003) "Make Truth the Target," Times Higher Education Supplement 2 May.
16.
Gieryn, T.F. ( 1995) "Boundaries of Science," in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 393-443. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
Gieryn, T.F. ( 1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line . Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Gitlin, T. ( 1980) The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
Gorss, J. and Lewenstein, B. ( 2005) "The Salience of Small: Nanotechnology Coverage in the American Press, 1986-2004," paper presented at International Communication Association Conference, 27 May, Sheraton, New York.
20.
Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J. and Beyleveld, D. ( 1999) "The Media and Public Understanding of Biotechnology: A Survey of Scientists and Journalists," Science Communication20(4): 373-94.
21.
Hansen, A. ( 1994) "Journalistic Practices and Science Reporting in the British Press" Public Understanding of Science3(2): 111-34.
22.
Highfield, R. ( 2003) "Spare Us All from Royal Nanoangst," Daily Telegraph 30 April, p. 20.
23.
Hilgartner, S. ( 1990) "The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses" Social Studies of Science20(3): 519-39.
24.
HM Government (2005) The Government’s Outline Programme for Public Engagement on Nanotechnologies. August. HM Government in Consultation with the Devolved Administrations. URL: http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/programme12.pdf
25.
Hornig Priest, S. ( 1994) "Structuring Public Debate on Biotechnology: Media Frames and Public Response," Science Communication16(2): 166-79.
26.
Hornig Priest, S. ( 2001) "Cloning: A Study in News Production," Public Understanding of Science10(2): 59-69.
27.
House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and Society-Third Report. URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm
Lewenstein, B.V. ( 1995a) "Science and Media," in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, pp. 343-60. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
Lewenstein, B.V. ( 1995b) "From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga," Social Studies of Science25(3): 403-36.
31.
Logan, R.A. ( 1991) "Popularization versus Secularization: Media Coverage of Health," in L. Wilkins and P. Patterson (eds) Risky Business: Communicating Issues of Science, Risk and Public Policy, pp. 43-60. New York: Greenwood.
32.
López, J. ( 2004) "Bridging the Gaps: Science Fiction in Nanotechnology ," HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry10(2): 129-52.
33.
Miller, M. and Riechert, B.P. ( 2000) "Interest Group Strategies and Journalistic Norms: News Media Framing of Environmental Issues," in S. Allan, B. Adam and C. Carter (eds) Environmental Risks and the Media, pp. 45-54. London: Routledge.
34.
Nanoforum Report (2004) The 4th Nanoforum Report: Benefits, Risks, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Nanotechnology. June. European Nanotechnology Gateway, Nanoforum.org. URL: http://www.nanoforum.org/
35.
Nerlich, B. ( 2005) "From Nautilus to Nanobo(a)ts: The Visual Construction of Nanoscience," AZojono: Journal of Nanotechnology Online 22 December. URL: http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1466#_Popular_Culture_and_Nanoscience (accessed 1 May 2007).
36.
Nisbet, M.C. and Lewenstein, B.V. ( 2002) "Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999" Science Communication23(4): 359-91.
37.
Nisbet, M., Brossard, D. and Kroepsch, A. ( 2003) "Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in the Age of Press/Politics," Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics8(2): 36-70.
38.
Peters, H.P. ( 1995) "The Interaction of Journalists and Scientific Experts: Co-operation and Conflict between Two Professional Cultures," Media, Culture and Society17(1): 31-48.
39.
Petersen, A. ( 1999) "The Portrayal of Research into Genetic-based Differences of Sex and Sexual Orientation: A Study of ‘Popular’ Science Journals, 1980 to 1997" Journal of Communication Inquiry23(2): 163-82.
40.
Petersen, A. ( 2002) "Replicating our Bodies, Losing Ourselves: News Media Portrayals of Human Cloning in the Wake of Dolly," Body and Society8(4): 71-90.
41.
Petersen, A., Anderson, A. and Allan, S. ( 2005) "Science Fiction/Science Fact: Medical Genetics in Fictional and News Stories," New Genetics and Society24(3): 337-53.
42.
Reed, R. ( 2001) "(Un-)Professional Discourse? Journalists’ and Scientists’ Stories about Science in the Media," Journalism2(3): 279-98.
43.
Royal Society (2006) Science Communication: Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers. London: Royal Society . URL: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=3052
44.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (RS/RAE) ( 2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties Report. 29 July. URL: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm
45.
Stephens, L.F. ( 2004) "News Narratives about Nano: How Journalists and the News Media are Framing Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Initiatives and Issues," paper presented to Imaging and Imagining Nanoscience and Engineering Conference, 3-7 March, University of South Carolina.
46.
Stephens, L.F. ( 2005) "News Narratives about Nano S & T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S. Newspapers," Science Communication27(2): 175-99.
47.
Stott, R. ( 2003) "Clone Prince of Wales," Sunday Mirror 4 May, p. 14.
