This article investigates how nanotechnology is presented and framed in Slovenian national newspapers. The focus is on the mass media’s influence on citizens’ perceptions of the social implications of nanotechnological progress. An empirical analysis of newspaper coverage of nanotechnology in Slovenia between 2004 and 2009 suggests that Slovenian newspapers are in an early stage of covering nanotechnology issues since they emphasize the positive aspects and scientific interpretations. Additional in-depth interviews with nanotechnologists reveal considerable dissatisfaction with the level and quality of the media’s reporting of the issue of nanotechnology in Slovenia.
AllhoffF.LinP. (Eds.). (2008). Nanotechnology & society: Current and emerging ethical issues. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
3.
AndersonA.AllanS.PetersenA.WilkinsonC. (2005). The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27, 200-220.
4.
AndersonA.PetersenA.WilkinsonC.AllanS. (2009). Nanotechnology, risk and communication. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
AntillaL. (2010). Self-censorship and science: A geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 240-256.
6.
ArnaldiS. (2008). Converging technologies in the Italian daily press 2002-2006: Preliminary results of an ongoing research project. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21, 87-94.
7.
BaderR. G. (1990). How science news sections influence newspaper science coverage: A case study. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 88-96.
8.
BawaR.JohnsonS. (2008). Emerging issues in nanomedicine and ethics. In AllhoffF.PatrickL. (Eds.), Nanotechnology & society: Current and emerging ethical issues (pp. 207-223). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
9.
BennettI.SarewitzD. (2006). Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture, 15, 309-325.
10.
Bennett-WoodsD. (2006). Nanotechnology in medicine: Implications of converging technologies on humanity. Development, 49, 54-59.
11.
BowmanD. M.HodgeG. A. (2007). Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: Some international observations. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27, 118-132.
12.
BucchiM. (2004). Science in society. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
BucchiM.MazzoliniR. G. (2003). Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 7-24.
ChristidouV.DimopoulosK.KouladisV. (2004). Constructing social representations of science and technology: The role of metaphors in the press and popular scientific disciplines. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 347-362.
16.
CollinsH.EvansR. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
DimopoulosK.KoulaidisV. (2002). The socio-epistemic constitution of science and technology in the Greek press: An analysis of its presentation. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 225-241.
18.
DoubledayR. (2007). Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 211-227.
19.
EbbesenM.AndersenS.BesenbacherF. (2006). Ethics in nanotechnology: Starting from scratch?Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 451-462.
20.
European Commission. (2003). Third European report on science & technology indicators: Towards a knowledge-based economy. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/indicators/docs/3rd_report.pdf
FaberB. (2006). Popularizing nanoscience: The public rhetoric of nanotechnology, 1986-1999. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 141-169.
25.
FutrellR. (2003). Technical adversarialism and participatory collaboration in the U.S. chemical weapons disposal program. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 28, 451-482.
26.
GaskellG.Ten EyckT.JacksonJ.VeltriG. (2004). Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials, 3, 496.
27.
GoodmanR. J.GoodmanB. P. (2006). Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 359-375.
HijmansE.PleijterA.WesterF. (2003). Covering scientific research in Dutch newspapers. Science Communication, 25, 153-176.
31.
HoS.ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. A. (2010). Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication, X, 1-34.
32.
JasanoffS. (2005). Design on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
KleinmanL. D.PowellM.GriceJ.AdrianJ.LobesC. (2007). A toolkit for democratizing science and technology policy: The practical mechanics of organizing a consensus conference. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27, 154-169.
34.
KohringM.MatthesJ. (2002). The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 143-154.
35.
KulveH. T. (2006). Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Science as Culture, 15, 367-382.
36.
KurathM.GislerP. (2009). Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 559-573.
37.
LoveridgeD.DewickP.RandlesS. (2008). Converging technologies at the nanoscale: The making of a new world?Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20, 29-43.
38.
MacnaghtenP.KearnesM.WynneB. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication, 27, 268-291.
39.
MacoubrieJ. (2006). Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 221-241.
40.
MaliF. (2009). Bringing converging technologies closer to civil society: The role of the precautionary principle. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22, 53-75.
41.
MaliF. (2010). Turning science transdisciplinary: Is it possible for the new concept of cross-disciplinary cooperations to enter Slovenian science and policy? In BogatajL.MuellerK.SvetlikI.TosN. (Eds.), Modern RISC-societies: Towards a new paradigm for societal evolution (pp. 461-477). Vienna, Austria: Echoraum.
42.
MaliF.GroboljsekB. (2008). Intermediarne strukture v Sloveniji in njihova vloga pri prenosu znanja z akademskega podrocja znanosti v gospodarstvo [Intermediary structure in Slovenia and their role in knowledge transfer from academia to industry]. Teorija in praksa, 45, 93-112.
43.
Mediana. (2009). Redna letna raziskava stanja medijskega pluralizma v Republiki Sloveniji v letu 2008 na področju slovenskih tiskanih, radijskih in televizijskih medijev ter elektronskih publikacij [Regular annual research into the state of media pluralism in Slovenia in 2009 in the field of Slovenian print, radio and television media and electronic publications]. Retrieved from http://www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/raziskave-analize/mediji/MZK_pluralizem_29042010-POPRAVEK.pdf
NelkinD. (1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
46.
PetersenA.AndersonA.AllanS.WilkinsonC. (2009). Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 512-530.
47.
PidgeonN.Rogers-HaydenT. (2007). Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or “upstream engagement”?Health, Risk & Society, 9, 191-210.
48.
RemskarM. (2009). Nanodelci in nanovarnost [Nanoparticles and nanosafety]. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Ministrstvo za zdravje, Urad RS za kemikalije.
RizmanR. (2006). Uncertain path: Democratic transition and consolidation in Slovenia. College Station, TX: A&M University Press.
52.
RodriguesR. (2006). The implications of high-rate nanomanufacturing on society and personal privacy. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 38-45.
53.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 30, 251-290.
54.
SchäferM. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30, 475-505.
55.
ScheufeleD. A.LewensteinB. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
56.
ScheufeleD. A.TewksburyD. (2007). Framing, agenda setting and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
57.
Schmidt KjærgaardR. (2010). Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 80-97.
58.
SchummerJ. (2008). Cultural diversity in nanotechnology ethics. In AllhoffF.LinP. (Eds.), Nanotechnology & society: Current and emerging ethical issues. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
59.
SchützH.WiedemannP. M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 369-379.
StephensL. F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 27, 175-199.
64.
UskokovicV. (2007). Nanotechnologies: What we do not know. Technology in Society, 29, 43-61.
65.
VeltriA. G.CrescentiniA. (2010). ¡Viva la Nano Revolucion!: Nanotechnology in the Spanish National Press. Paper presented at the EASST 2010 Conference, Trento, Italy.
66.
WeingartP. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhaeltnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft [The moment of truth: the relationship of science to politics, business and media in the knowledge society]. Weilerwist, Germany: Velbrueck Wissenschaft.
67.
WeingartP. (2011). Science, the public and the media: Views from everywhere. In CarrierM.NordmannA. (Eds.), Science in the context of application (pp. 337-348; Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
68.
WeingartP.SalzmannC.WormannS. (2008). The social embedding of biomedicine: An analysis of German media debates 1995-2004. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 381-396.
69.
ZimmermanC.BisanzG. L.BisanzJ.KleinJ. S.KleinP. (2001). Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts’ advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 37-58.
