The author of this content analytic study examines news narratives about nano science and technology (nano S&T) in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers by taking a random sample of 350 articles published from1988 through mid-July 2004 froma universe of 1,330 articles. In addition to identifying dominant frames or content themes, the author evaluates whether there is a dominant tone or sentiment regarding the ethical, legal, and societal implications of developments and issues in nano S&T. Scientific discoveries or projects and the social effects of nano S&T are the dominant frames. The ratio of articles leaning toward the sentiment that benefits outweigh risks versus that risks outweigh benefits is three to one.
Andsager, J., and L. Smiley. 1998. Evaluating the public information: Shaping news coverage of the silicone implant controversy. Public Relations Review24 (2): 183-201.
2.
Balbus, J., R. Denison, K. Florini, and S. Walsh. 2005. Getting nanotechnology right the first time. Issues in Science and Technology21 (4): 65-71.
3.
Bean, A. S., R. Chapas, M. J. Collins, and A. I. Kingon. 2005. Nanoscience and technology: Firms take first steps. Research Technology Management48 (3): 3-7.
4.
Bucchi, M.1998. Science and the media: Alternative routes in scientific communication. Routledge Studies in Science, Technology, and Society. London: Routledge.
5.
Bucchi, M., and R. Mazzolini. 2003. Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science12 (1): 7-24.
6.
Cobb, M. D., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research6 (4): 395-405.
7.
Dornan, C.1990. Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of “science and the media.”Critical Studies in Mass Communication7 (1): 48-71.
8.
Einsiedel, E. F., and L. Goldenberg. 2004. Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society24 (1): 28-33.
9.
Gaskell, G., N. Allum, W. Wagner, N. Kronberger, H. Torgersen, J. Hampel, and J. Bardes. 2004. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis24 (1): 185-194.
10.
Gaskell, G., T. Ten Eyck, J. Jackson, and G. Veltri. 2005. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science14 (1): 81-90.
11.
Hagedorn, C., and S. Allender-Hagedorn. 1997. Issues in agricultural and environmental biotechnology: Identifying and comparing biotechnology issues from public opinion surveys, the popular press and technical/regulatory sources. Public Understanding of Science6 (3): 233-245.
12.
Jackson, S. A. 2005. The nexus of science and society. President's address delivered at 171st national meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 17, Washington, DC.
13.
Lane, N., and T. Kalil. 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the creation. Issues in Science and Technology21 (4): 49-54.
14.
Levitt, M.2003. Public consultation in bioethics. What's the point of asking the public when they have neither scientific nor ethical expertise?Health Care Analysis11 (1): 15-25.
15.
Lewenstein, B. V.2004. Introduction to social and ethical issues in nanotechnology. Departments of Communication and Science & Technology Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Retrieved July 11, 2004, from http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bvl1/NanoSEI.htm.
16.
Locke, S.2004. Charisma and the iron cage: Rationalization, science and scientology. Social Compass51 (1): 111-131.
17.
Maxwell, T. A.2003. The public need to know: Emergencies, government organizations, and public information policies. Government Information Quarterly20: 233-258.
18.
McGloughlin, M.2001. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnology—a nonsocial science perspective. Medical Anthropology Quarterly15 (1): 34-37.
19.
Meister, M.2001. Meteorology and the rhetoric of nature's cultural display. Quarterly Journal of Speech87 (4): 415-428.
20.
Michael, M., A. Grinyer, and J. Turner. 1997. Teaching biotechnology: Identity in the context of ignorance and knowledgeability. Public Understanding of Science6 (1): 1-17.
21.
Morris, S. H., and C. C. Adley. 2001. Irish public perceptions and attitudes to modern biotechnology: An overview with a focus on GM foods. Trends in Biotechnology19 (2): 43-48.
22.
National Science Board. 2002. Science and engineering indicators—2002.NSB-02-1. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
23.
Nelkin, D.1995. Science's fall from grace. The Humanist55 (September/October): 14-19.
24.
Nisbet, M., and B. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication23 (4): 359-391.
25.
Nisbet, M., D. Scheufele, J. Shanahan, P. Moy, D. Brossard, and B. Lewenstein. 2002. Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29 (5): 584-608.
26.
Nisbet, M. C., D. Brossard, and A. Kroepsch. 2003. Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics8 (2): 36-70.
27.
Parsi, K., and K. Geraghty. 2004. The bioethicist as public intellectual. The American Journal of Bioethics4 (1): W17-W23.
28.
Pollack, H. N.2003. Can the media help science?Skeptic10: 74-80.
29.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). 2005, May. The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from http://www.nano.gov/FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf.
30.
Priest, S., H. Bonfadelli, and M. Rusanen. 2003. The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis23 (4): 751-766.
31.
Report calls U.S. leader in nano R&D.2005. American Ceramic Society Bulletin84 (6): 14-15.
32.
Roth, A., J. Dunsby, and L. Bero. 2003. Framing processes in public commentary on US federal tobacco control regulation. Social Studies of Science33 (1): 7-44.
33.
Schummer, J.2005. Reading nano: The public interest in nanotechnology as reflected in purchase patterns of books. Public Understanding of Science14 (2): 163-183.
34.
Simpson, C. R.1987. Nature as news: Science reporting in The New York Times1898 to 1983. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society1 (2): 218-241.
35.
Smart, A.2003. Reporting the dawn of the post-genomic era: Whowants to live forever?Sociology of Health & Illness25 (1): 24-49.
36.
Tomaselli, K., and A. Shepperson. 1999. The poverty of journalism: Media studies and “ science.”Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies13 (2): 237-253.
37.
Wagner, W., N. Kronberger, and F. Seifert. 2002. Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology41: 323-343.
38.
Wolfe, A., D. Bjornstad, M. Russell, and N. Kerchner. 2002. A framework for analyzing dialogues over the acceptability of controversial technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values27 (1): 134-159.
