This article introduces the special issue of Science Communication on “nanotechnology and the public.” It argues that studies of “nanotechnology and the public” are important not for themselves, but for their ability to shed light on more general social theories, especially those that help illuminate the interweaving of science and society.
Anon. 1958. Science, the news, and the public. New York: New York University Press.
2.
Bauer, M. W., and G. Gaskell, eds. 2002. Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Cloitre, M., and T. Shinn. 1985. Expository practice: Social, cognitive, and epistemological linkage. In Expository science, edited by T. Shinn and R. Whitley. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Reidel.
4.
Cobb, M., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research6(4): 395–405.
5.
Cobb, M., J. Macoubrie, and P. W. Hamlett. 2004. Public information, development scenarios and public deliberation of nanotechnology. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
6.
Cooter, R.1984. The cultural meaning of popular science: Phrenology and the organization of consent in nineteenth-century Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Cooter, R., and S. Pumfrey. 1994. Separate spheres and public places: Reflections on the history of science popularization and science in popular culture. History of Science32(3): 237–267.
8.
Council for Science and Technology (UK). 2005. Policy through dialogue: Informing policies based on science and technology. London: Council for Science and Technology.
9.
Crichton, M.2002. Prey. New York: Harper Collins.
10.
Davis, R. C.1958. The public impact of science in the mass media: Areport on a nation-wide survey for the National Association of Science Writers. Monograph No. 25. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
11.
Drexler, K. E.1986. Engines of creation. 1st ed.Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
12.
Friedman, S. M., S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, eds. 1986. Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news. New York: The Free Press.
13.
Friedman, S. M., S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, eds. 1999. Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
Gamson, W. A., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1–37.
15.
GMPublic Debate Steering Board. 2003. GMnation?The findings of the public debate. London: UK Department of Trade and Industry.
16.
House of Lords. 2000. Science and society. London: UK House of Lords.
17.
Irwin, A., and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Joy, B.2000. Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired. April, 238–262.
19.
Krieghbaum, H.1967. Science and the mass media. New York: New York University Press.
20.
Layton, D., E. Jenkins, S. MacGill, and A. Davey. 1993. Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. London/ Driffield: Studies in Education.
21.
Mazur, A.1981. Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication31(2): 106–115.
22.
National Science Board. 2002. Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. In Science & Engineering Indicators—2002.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23.
Nelkin, D.1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. Rev. ed.New York: W. H. Freeman.
24.
Priest, S. H.2001. A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
25.
Radin, J. 2003. Scientists in government: Framing the environmental and societal implications of nanotechnology. Master's thesis, Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
26.
Roco, M. C., and W. S. Bainbridge. 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
27.
Roco, M. C., and W. S. Bainbridge. 2005 (in press). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology II: Maximizing human benefit. Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, December 3–5, 2003, Arlington, VA. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
28.
Royal Academy of Engineering, and Royal Society. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London.
29.
Wynne, B.1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology& Human Values16(1): 111–121.
30.
Ziman, J.1991. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values16(1): 99–105.
31.
Ziman, J.1992. Not knowing, needing to know, and wanting to know. In When science meets the public, edited by B. V. Lewenstein. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
