The commercialization of nanotechnologies and the rapid development of hyperbole around their commercialization can provide a fertile field for research into how the potentials and expectations of an emerging technology are communicated to investors. As the commercialization of nanotechnologies intensifies, this area will grow in significance. This article explores how the financial potentials of nanotechnologies and the promise of high returns for investors are constructed by marketing professionals and mediated through financial media. Attention is focused on how the immense uncertainties that surround nanotech as a commercialized field are managed by scientists, marketers, public relations professionals, and journalists and on the communication strategies used to take advantage of the ambiguities of nanotech in order to translate the technologies into a profitable industry.
Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005a). The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27(2), 200-220.
4.
Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005b, February). Textual representations of nanotechnology . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
5.
Bubnoff, A. von. (2006a). Magic Nano shows industry need for standard terminologySmall Times. Retrieved November 29, 2007 , from http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=11289
6.
Bubnoff, A. von. (2006b). Study shows no nano in Magic Nano, the German product recalled for causing breathing problems. Small Times . Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=11586
7.
Bullis, K. (2006). “Nano” safety recallTechnology Review. Retrieved August 28, 2006, from http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16681&ch=nanotech&sc=&pg=1
8.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Breiuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (Sociological Review Monograph32, pp. 196-233). London: Routledge/ Kegan Paul.
9.
Callon, M. (1998). The laws of the market. Oxford , UK: Blackwell.
10.
Callon, M., Meadel, C., & Rabegarisoa, V. (2005). The economy of qualities . In A. Barry & D. Slater (Eds.), The technological economy (pp. 28-50). London: Routledge.
11.
Cassidy, J. (2002). dot.con. London: Allen Lane/ Penguin.
12.
Clark, G.L., Thrift, N., & Tickell, A. (2005). Performing finance: The industry, the media and its image. In A. Barry & D. Slater (Eds.), The technological economy (pp. 165-182). London: Routledge.
13.
Clarke, A.E., & Star, S.L. (2003). Science, technology and medical studies. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism (pp. 539-574). Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
14.
Cobb, M.D. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology . Science Communication, 27(2), 221-239.
15.
Collins, H.M. (1987). Certainty and the public understanding of science: Science on television. Social Studies of Science, 17(4), 689-713.
16.
Cooper, G., & Ebeling, M. (2007). Epistemology, structure, and urgency: The sociology of financial and scientific Journalists. Sociological Research Online, 12(3). Retrieved October 11, 2007, from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/8.html
17.
Crosby, P. (1997). The absolutes of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Davis, A. (2006). Media effects and the question of the rational audience: Lessons from financial markets. Media, Culture and Society, 28(4), 603-625.
19.
Davis, P. (2005, September 19). Nanoscience potential raises questions for investors. Financial Times, p. 3.
20.
Dunderi, A. (2005). How to implement a thought leadership PR program . Minneapolis, MN: Schermer Kuehl Marketing.
21.
Dunwoody, S. (1986). The science writing inner club: A communication link between science and the lay public. In S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp. 155-169). New York: Free Press.
22.
Ewen, Stuart.1996. PR! A social history of spin. New York : Basic Books.
23.
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). ( 2006). Exercise caution when using “nanosealing sprays” containing a propellant! Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://www.bfr.bund.de/cms5w/sixcms/detail.php/7699
24.
Friedman, S.M., & Egolf, B.P. (2005). Nanotechnology: Risk and the mediaIEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Winter, 5-11.
25.
Gaskell, G., Eyck, T.T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2005). Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 81-90.
26.
Gilbert, G.N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state and law and order. London: MacMillan.
28.
Jaffe, C. (2005, December 16, 2005). “Stupid” investment of the week: Problems with nanotech fund are anything but small . MarketWatch. Retrieved December 25, 2005 , from http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B232302FC-40D5-4B34-91DC-44DDE5EE591F%7D&siteid=google&dist=
29.
Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., & Wilsdon, J. (2006). Governing at the nanoscale: People, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos.
30.
Kelly, J. (2006). Nanotech lures bankers, VCs with promise of $1 trillion market. Bloomberg News. Retrieved July 27, 2006, from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ayHbTn8GgpVo&refer=us
31.
Kiernan, V. (2003). Embargoes and science news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 903-920.
32.
Knorr-Centina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
Loder, N. (2005, January 1). Downsizing. The Economist , pp. 9-11.
35.
Lux Research. (2005a). Lux executive summit, October 24-25, 2005, Boston, MA. New York: Author.
36.
Lux Research. (2005b). A prudent approach to nanotech environmental, health and safety risks. New York: Author.
37.
Lux Research. (2006a). The nanotech report (4th ed.). New York: Author.
38.
Lux Research. (2006b). Taking action on nanotech environmental, health and safety risks. New York: Author.
39.
Lux Research. (2007). About Lux Research Available from http://www.luxresearchinc.com/about.php
40.
MacKenzie, D., & Millo, Y. (2003). Constructing a market, performing theory: The historical sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 107-145.
41.
Miller, D. (1999). Risk, science and policy: Definitional struggles, information management, the media and BSE. Social Science and Medicine, 49(9), 1239-1255.
42.
Milunovich, S., & Roy, J.M.A. (2005). Nanotech investing forum emphasizes product sales. In Merrill Lynch comment, U.S. technology strategy: Nanotechnology (pp. 1-4). New York: Merrill Lynch.
43.
National Research Council. (2006). A matter of size: Triennial review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative . Washington DC: National Academies of Science.
Piller, C. (2006, June 1). Science's tiny, big unknown. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
46.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2005). The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Washington DC: Author.
47.
Roco, M. (2003). Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5(3/4), 181-189.
48.
Roco, M., & Bainbridge, W.S. (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Boston: Kluwer.
49.
Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Author .
50.
Schuler, E. (2004). Perceptions of risks and nanotechnology. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 279-284). Amsterdam: IOS.
51.
Shackley, S., & Wynne, B. (1996). Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(3), 275-302.
52.
Star, S.L. (1985). Scientific work and uncertainty. Social Studies of Science, 15(3), 391-427.
53.
Star, S.L., & Griesemer, J.R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
54.
Stephens, L.F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 27(2), 175-199.
55.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality . New York: Free Press.
56.
Warner, K., & Molotch, H. (1993). Information in the marketplace: Media explanations of the '87 crash. Social Problems, 40(2), 167-188.
57.
Weiss, R. (2006, April 6). Nanotech product recalled in Germany . The Washington Post, p. A02.
58.
Wolfe, J. (2005). Top 10 nanoproducts of 2005. Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report, 12, 1-8.
59.
Wolfe, J. (2006a, October 19). Adviser soapbox: Nanotech speculator stocks. Class of 2006. Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/19/nanotechnology-jmar-nanometrics-pf-guru-in_jw_1018soapbox_inl.html
60.
Wolfe, J. (2006b, April 28). The Who, music and mathForbes/Wolfe Nanotech Insider Weekly [e-mail newsletter].
61.
Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2003). The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology . Swindon, UK: Economic and Social Research Council.
62.
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10(4), 445-481.
63.
Zehr, S.C. (1999). Scientists' representations of uncertainty. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 3-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
