The potentially controversial science of nanotechnology is only now beginning to infiltrate mainstream public consciousness through media channels. This article suggests the infiltration is taking different forms, depending on the nationality of journalists reporting on the science. Having completed analysis of a large longitudinal international sample of news and feature articles about nanotechnology, we report that journalists in Australia and New Zealand deploy sources ‘direct from the lab’ to highlight scientific advancements; those in Asia emphasise the nation-building potential of nanotechnology; US journalists provide positive coverage across all areas; and those in the United Kingdom offer the most critical analysis and risk reporting. These messages have also evolved over time in each region. Results are integrated with existing research about public perceptions of nanotechnology, and suggest several themes common to all media reporting of nanotechnology, the most important of which reflects positive reporting or acceptance, although safety concerns and health risks also arise.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BucchiM.1998, Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication, Routledge, London.
2.
BurriR.V.BellucciS.2008, ‘Public Perception of Nanotechnology’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 387–91.
3.
CobbM.D.MacoubrieJ.2004, ‘Public Perceptions About Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits, and Trust’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, no. 6, pp. 395–405.
4.
CorleyE.A.ScheufeleD.A.2010, ‘Outreach Gone Wrong? When We Talk Nano to the Public, We are Leaving Behind Key Audiences’, The Scientist, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 22.
5.
DudoA.D.ChoiD.H.ScheufeleD.A.2011, ‘Food Nanotechnology in the News: Coverage Patterns and Thematic Emphases During the Last Decade’, Appetite, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 78–89.
6.
DudoA.D.DunwoodyS.ScheufeleD.A. (forthcoming), ‘The Emergence of Nano News: Tracking Thematic Trends and Changes in US Newspaper Coverage of Nanotechnology’, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly.
7.
EinsiedelE.2005, ‘In the Public Eye: The Early Landscape of Nanotechnologies Among Canadian and US Publics’, Journal of Nanotechnology Online, www.azonano.com/Details.as
8.
FriedmanS.M.EgolfB.P.2005, ‘Nanotechnology, Risks and the Media’, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 5–11.
9.
GaskellG.2004, ‘Public Attitudes to Nanotechnology in Europe and the United States’, Nature Materials, vol. 3, no. 8, p. 496.
10.
GaskellG.2005, ‘Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States’, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 81–90.
11.
HoS.S.ScheufeleD.A.CorleyE.A.2010, ‘Making Sense of Policy Choices: Understanding the Roles of Value Predispositions, Mass Media, and Cognitive Processing in Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 2703–15.
KrippendorffK.2004, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
14.
LewensteinB.BonneyR.BrossardD.2005, ‘Scientific Knowledge and Attitude Change: The Impact of a Citizen Science Project’, International Journal of Science Education, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1099–1121.
NisbetM.LewensteinB.2002, ‘Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970–1999’, Science Communication, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 359–91.
17.
NisbetM.C.BrossardD.KroepschA.2003, ‘Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy’, Harvard International Journal of Press and Politics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 36–70.
18.
PidgeonN.Rogers-HaydenT.2007, ‘Opening Up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Public: Risk Communication or “Upstream Engagement”?’, Health, Risk & Society, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 191–210.
19.
RothA.DunsbyJ.BeroL.2003, ‘Framing Processes in Public Commentary on US Federal Tobacco Control’, Studies of Social Science, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 7–44.
20.
ScheufeleD.A.2006, ‘Messages and Heuristics: How Audiences Form Attitudes About Emerging Technologies’, in TurneyJ. (ed.), Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action, Wellcome Trust, London, pp. 20–5.
ScheufeleD.A.CorleyE.A.ShihT.-J.DalrympleK.E.HoS.S.2009, ‘Religious Beliefs and Public Attitudes to Nanotechnology in Europe and the US’, Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 91–4.
23.
ScheufeleD.A.LewensteinB.V.2005, ‘The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 659–67.
24.
SeearK.PetersonA.BowmanD.2009, ‘The Social and Economic Impacts of Nanotechnologies: A Literature Review’, in Final Report Prepared for the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Monash University, Melbourne.
25.
SmithA.E.HumphreysM.S.2006, ‘Evaluation of Unsupervised Semantic Diagramping of Natural Language with Leximancer Concept Diagramping’, Behavior Research Methods, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 262–79.
26.
StephensL.F.2005, ‘News Narratives About Nano S&T in Major US and Non-US Newspapers’, Science Communication, vol. 27, p. 125.
27.
StockwellP.ColombR.M.SmithA.E.WilesJ.2009, ‘Use of an Automatic Content Analysis Tool: A Technique for Seeing Both Local and Global Scope’, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 424–36.
28.
Ten EyckT.A.WillimentM.2004, ‘The More Things Change … Milk Pasteurization, Food Irradiation, and Biotechnology in the New York Times’, The Social Science Journal, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 29–41.
29.
WeaverD.A.BimberB.2009, ‘Finding News Stories: A Comparison of Searches Using LexisNexus and Google News’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 515–30.
30.
WeaverD.A.LivelyE.BimberB.2009, ‘Searching for a Frame: News Media Tell the Story of Technological Progress, Risk, and Regulation’, Science Communication, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 139–66.
31.
WeberR.P.1990, Basic Content Analysis, 2nd ed, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
32.
WilsdonJ.WynneB.StilgoeJ.2005, The Public Value of Science. Or How to Ensure that Science Really Matters, Demos, London.
33.
WynneB.2001, ‘Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs’, Science Culture, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 445–81.
