A Longitudinal Study of Newspaper and Wire Service Coverage of Nanotechnology Risks
Corresponding Author
Sharon M. Friedman
Department of Journalism and Communication, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA.
Sharon M. Friedman, Department of Journalism and Communication, Lehigh University, 33 Coppee Drive, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA; tel: 610-758-4179; fax: 610-758-6198; [email protected].Search for more papers by this authorBrenda P. Egolf
Research Scientist, Center for Social Research, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA.
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Sharon M. Friedman
Department of Journalism and Communication, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA.
Sharon M. Friedman, Department of Journalism and Communication, Lehigh University, 33 Coppee Drive, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA; tel: 610-758-4179; fax: 610-758-6198; [email protected].Search for more papers by this authorBrenda P. Egolf
Research Scientist, Center for Social Research, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA.
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This study reviewed coverage of nanotechnology risks in 20 U.S. and 9 U.K. newspapers and 2 wire services from 2000 to 2009. It focused on information that citizens could come across in daily newspaper reading that could highlight the salience of these issues and alert readers to potential risks. Few articles about nanotechnology health, environmental, and societal risks were found in these publications during this period, averaging only 36.7 per year for both countries. The coverage emphasized three main narratives over time: runaway technology, science-based studies, and regulation. Health risks were covered most frequently, followed by environmental and societal risk issues. Regulation coverage was not as frequent but increased over time. The majority of the coverage focused on news events and 10 events drew modest media attention. Scientific uncertainty discussions appeared in about half of the articles, and scientists and engineers were the dominant information sources in both countries. Some significant differences between U.S. and U.K. coverage were found: U.K. coverage emphasized more societal concerns, while U.S. coverage paid more attention to environmental risks. Because the volume of coverage was not extensive and was counterbalanced by many more articles extolling nanotechnology's benefits, it is questionable whether this coverage alerted readers about potential nanotechnology risks. Coupled with citizens’ minimal knowledge about nanotechnology, this type of coverage could create public distrust of nanotechnology applications should a dangerous risk event occur.
REFERENCES
- 1 Cobb MD, Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2004; 6: 395–403.
- 2 Currell SC. New insights into public perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4: 79–80.
- 3 Gaskell G, Eych TT, Jackson J, Veltri G. Imagining nanotechnology: Culture support for technological innovations in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 2005; 14: 81–90.
- 4 Hart PD. Research Associates, Inc. Report findings: Attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Report, September 19, 2006. Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/files/HartReport.pdf. Accessed in June 2010.
- 5 Hart PD. Research Associates, Inc. Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Report, September 16, 2008. Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7040/final-synbioreport.pdf. Accessed in June 2010.
- 6 Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G. Nanotechnology risk perceptions: The influence of affect and values. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Report, March 2007. Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2710/164_nanotechriskperceptions_dankahan.pdf. Accessed in June 2010.
- 7 Macoubrie J. Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Report, September 2005. Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/2709/8_informed_public_perceptions_of_nanotechnology_and_trust_in_govern ment.pdf. Accessed in June 2010.
- 8 Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople's and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 2007; 279 (1): 59–69.
- 9 Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie, C, Conti J, Harthorn B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4: 752–758.
- 10 Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T, Hillback E, Guston DH. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2007; 2: 732–734.
- 11 Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering (UK). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, 2004. Available at: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm. Accessed in June 2010.
- 12 Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering (UK). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties: Two-year review of progress on government actions, 2006. Available at http://royalsociety.org/Report_WF.aspx?pageid=8241&terms=nanotechnology+report+2006& fragment=&SearchType=&terms=nanotechnology%20report %202006. Accessed in June 2010.
- 13 Sample I. Attack of tiny particles; report calls for more tests on “wonder ingredient”: Proliferation of nano materials could pose risk. Guardian, November 12, 2008, p. 3.
- 14 The National Academies (US). Implications of nanotechnology for environmental health research, 2005. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11248. Accessed in June 2010.
- 15 The National Academies (US). Review of federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research, 2009. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id12559. Accessed in June 2010.
- 16 Poland CA, Duffin R, Kinloch I, Maynard A, Wallace, WAH, Seaton A, Stone V, Brown S, MacNee W, Donaldson K. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology, 2008; 3: 423–428.
- 17 Morgan K. Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25 (6): 1621–1635.
- 18 Siegrist M, Wiek A, Helland A, Kastenholz H. Risks and nanotechnology; the public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nature Nanotechnology, 2007; 2: 67.
- 19 Slovic P, Flynn J, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust and politics of nuclear waste. Pp. 275–284 in P Slovic (ed). The Perception of Risk. London : Earthscan, 2000.
- 20 Friedman SM. Risk communication, the Hanford thyroid disease study and draft reports. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 2001; 12: 91–105.
- 21 P Slovic (ed). Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Pp. 316–326 in The Perception of Risk. London : Earthscan, 2000.
- 22 Brossard D, Scheufele D, Kim E, Lewenstein B. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 2009; 18: 546–588.
- 23 Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2005; 7: 659–667.
- 24 Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen, G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4: 87–90.
- 25 SM Friedman, S Dunwoody, CL Rogers (eds). Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. Washington : American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1986.
- 26 National Science Foundation (US). Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding. In: Science and Engineering Indicators, 2010. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/c07/pdf. Accessed in April 2011.
- 27
N Pidgeon,
RE Kasperson,
P Slovic (eds). The Social Amplification of Risk.
Cambridge
: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
10.1017/CBO9780511550461 Google Scholar
- 28 Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson, C. The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 2005; 27(2): 200–220.
- 29 Nisbet MC, Scheufele, DA. What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 2009; 6: 1–12.
- 30 Friedman, SM, Egolf BP. Nanotechnology: Risk and the media. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 2005; Winter: 5–11.
- 31 Stephens L. News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 2005; 27: 175–199.
- 32 Lewenstein B, Gorss J, Radin J. The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Communication Association, New York , May 2005.
- 33 Weaver DA, Lively E, Bimber B. Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk and regulation. Science Communication, 2009; 31: 139–165.
- 34 Positive image of nanotechnology in the media: BfR publishes analysis of nanotechnology coverage. Chemie.De, Nov. 12, 2008. Available at http://www.chemie.de/news/e/89487/. Accessed in June 2010.
- 35
Te Kulve H.
Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands.
Science as Culture, 2006; 15: 367–382.
10.1080/09505430601022692 Google Scholar
- 36 Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4: 95–98.
- 37
Anderson A,
Allan S,
Petersen A,
Wilkinson, C.
Nanoethics: The role of the news media in shaping debate. Pp.
373–383
in
R Luppicini,
R Adell (eds). Handbook on Research on Technoethics, Vol
1.
Hershey
: Information Science Reference, 2009.
10.4018/978-1-60566-022-6.ch025 Google Scholar
- 38 Wilkinson C, Stuart C, Anderson A, Petersen A. From uncertainty to risk? Scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health, Risk & Society, 2007; 9: 145–157.
- 39 McCombs ME, Shaw, DL. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1972; 36 (2): 176–187.
- 40 McCombs M. The agenda-setting role of the mass media in the shaping of public opinion. Available at: http://www.infoamerica.org/documents.pdf/mccombs01.pdf, pp. 1–21. Accessed in March 2011.
- 41 Roco M. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2003; 5: 181–189.
- 42 Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA. The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in media coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2011; 88(1): 55–75.
- 43 Radford T. Brave new world or miniature menace? Why Charles fears grey goo nightmare: Royal Society asked to look at risks of nanotechnology. Guardian, April 29, 2003, p. 3.
- 44 Lambrecht B. Dinner at the New Gene Cafe. New York : St. Martin's Griffin; 2001, pp. 21–42, 216–241.
- 45
Weaver DA,
Bimber B.
Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using LexisNexis and Goggle news.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2008; 85: 517–532.
10.1177/107769900808500303 Google Scholar
- 46 Gilbert N. Nanoparticle safety in doubt. Nature News. August 18, 2009; 460: 937. doi:10.1038/460937a. Accessed in April 2011.
- 47 Desilva M, Maskavitch MAT, Roche JP. Print media coverage of antibiotic resistance. Science Communication, 2004; 26: 31–43.
- 48 Holliman, R. Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and reception. Public Understanding of Science, 2004; 13: 107–130.
- 49 Trumbo, C. Longitudinal modeling of public issues: An application of the agenda-setting process to the issue of global warming. Journalism and Mass Communication Monographs, 1995; 152: 1–57.
- 50 Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corely EA. From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perception about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. Published online January 6, 2011. doi: 10.1177/096366251039959. Accessed in April 2011.
- 51 Ladwig P, Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Shaw B. Narrowing the nano discourse. Materials Today, May 2010; 13: 52–54.
- 52 Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele, D. The changing information environment for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2010; 12: 1083–1094.
- 53 Shepherd, RG. Selectivity of sources: Reporting the marijuana controversy. Journal of Communication, 1981; 31: 129–137.
- 54 Zehr SC. Scientists’ representations of uncertainty. Pp. 3–21 in SM Friedman, S Dunwoody, CL Rogers (eds). Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Uncertain Science. New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.
- 55 Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Rating the risks. Pp. 110–111 in P Slovic (ed). The Perception of Risk. London : Earthscan, 2000.
- 56 Einsiedel E, Thorne B. Public responses to uncertainty. Pp. 43–57 in SM Friedman, S Dunwoody, CL Rogers (eds). Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Uncertain Science. New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.