NanoEthics

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 61–72 | Cite as

Representations of Nanotechnology in Norwegian Newspapers — Implications for Public Participation

Original Paper

Abstract

Public participation is a prominent issue in the nanoethics literature. This paper analyses the emerging awareness of nanoscience and nanotechnology (nano S&T) in the Norwegian public sphere, as evidenced by newspaper coverage. In particular, attention is on representations of nano S&T and their relation to public participation. Three dominant representations are found; nano S&T as positive, nano S&T as important for the future and nano S&T as under control. It is argued that the prominence of these representations is unfortunate because they can discourage public participation. The paper concludes by pointing to some broader questions about public participation as an instrument for governance of nano S&T.

Keywords

Media Nanotechnology Norway Public participation Upstream public engagement 

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27:200–220 doi:10.1177/1075547005281472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bioteknologinemnda (2000) Genialt, 4, special issue on the consensus conference on genetically modified foodGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowman DM (2007) Nanotechnology and public interest dialogue: some international observations. Bull Sci Technol Soc 27:18–132Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Commission (2005). Social values, science and technology special Eurobarometer225, Brussels, Available from http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/index_en.htm
  5. 5.
    European Commission. (2008) Socio-economic sciences & humanities and science in society in 2007, Highlights of the Year. EUR 23172Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Escobar A, Alvarez SE (eds) (1992) The making of social movements in Latin America: identity, strategy, and democracy. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Funtowicz SO, Ravetz J (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755 doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Involve, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hafstad A (2006) På helsa løs? Når pressen tar pulsen på helse-Norge. [English title in my translation: Harming health? When the press takes a pulse on Health-Norway] IJ-forlaget, KristiansandGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hornmoen H, Meyer G, Sylwan P (2006) Fornuften har flere stemmer [English title in my translation: Sense has many voices]. Cappelen Akademisk forlag, OsloGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    IFE (2008) homepages information retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.ife.no/main_subjects_new/materialtechnology/nanomateriale-en
  12. 12.
    Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired 8(4)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kearnes M, Wynne B (2007) On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics 1:131–142 doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0014-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kitcher P (2007) Scientific research—Who should govern? NanoEtchics 1:177–184 doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0019-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. NanoEthics 1:89–104 doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0011-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Macnaghten P, Kearnes M, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27:268–291 doi:10.1177/1075547005281531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norges Forskningsråd (2005) Nanoteknologier og nye materialer: Helse, miljø, etikk og samfunn [English title in my translation: nanotechnologies and new materials: Health, environment, ethics and society]. Report from the Research Council of Norway, OsloGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norges forskningsråd. (2006) Nasjonal strategi for nanovitenskap og nanoteknologi [National strategy for nanoscience and nanotechnology]. Report from the Research Council of Norway, OsloGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roco M, Bainbridge WS (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kulwer,, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering RE/RAE (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rogers-Hayden T, Mohr A, Pidgeon N (2007) Introduction: engaging with nanotechnologies — Engaging differently? NanoEthics 1:123–130 doi:10.1007/s11569-007-0013-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the royal society and royal academy of engineering’s inquiry. Public Understand. Science 16:345–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sandberg P, Kraft N (eds) (1996) Kvikklaks og teknoburger, report from the first participatory consensus conference in Norway on biotechnology and agriculture. The National Ethical Committees, OsloGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    SINTEF (2008) homepages, information retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.sintef.no/Home/Materials-and-Chemistry/About-SINTEF-Materials-and Chemistry
  25. 25.
    Sjøberg S, Schreiner C (2006) Holdninger til og forestillinger om vitenskap og teknologi i Norge – En framstilling basert på data fra Eurobarometer og ROSE. University of Oslo, OsloGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27:175–199 doi:10.1177/1075547005281520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues — Experiments in public engagement with science. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Toumey C (2006) National discourses in democratizing nanotechnology. Quaderni 61:81–101Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Willis R, Wilsdon J (2004) See-through science. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Porsborg Nielsen A, Lassen J, Sandøe P (2007) Democracy at it’s best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. J Agric Environ Ethics 20:13–35 doi:10.1007/s10806-006-9018-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Change 2:111–127 doi:10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? In: Lash SM, Szerszynski B, Wynne B (eds) Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. Sage, London, pp 44–83Google Scholar

Norwegian newspaper articles referred to in the text

  1. 33.
    Adresseavisen, 8. September 2000: “Nano for liten, nano for stor”Google Scholar
  2. 34.
    Adresseavisen, 7. November 2001 “Noen grunner til nøkternhet”Google Scholar
  3. 35.
    Adresseavisen, 13. October 2004: “Det vi ikke kan se”Google Scholar
  4. 36.
    Aftenposten, 20. September 2001: “Vår nye ferd innover Rør til 5000 kr. Grammet”Google Scholar
  5. 37.
    Aftenposten, 21. September2001: “Nano-medisinsk revolusjon”Google Scholar
  6. 38.
    Aftenposten, 15. March 2002: “Dette er USAs fremtidssoldat”Google Scholar
  7. 39.
    Aftenposten, 7. February 2007: “Fremtidens forskning”Google Scholar
  8. 40.
    Bergens Tidende, 7. June 2004: “Fysikk og teknologi i Afrika og på Mars”Google Scholar
  9. 41.
    Klassekampen, 8. April 2005: “Nano-revolusjon”Google Scholar
  10. 42.
    Dagbladet, 10. May 2003: “Nano for liten, nano for stor”Google Scholar
  11. 43.
    Dagbladet 31. December 2006. “Nano er Fremtida”Google Scholar
  12. 44.
    Dagsavisen, 8. March.2004: “Selvvaskende vinduer, Klær som ikke blir skitne, Billakk som ikke får riper, Nye behandlingsformer - Din nye mirakelhverdag”Google Scholar
  13. 45.
    Verdens Gang, 21.October 2004: “TEKNO-REVOLUSJONEN som vil forandre din hverdag”Google Scholar
  14. 46.
    Verdens Gang, 21.October 2004: “Utreder etikk”Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the HumanitiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations