Advertisement

U.S. News Coverage of Neuroscience Nanotechnology: How U.S. Newspapers Have Covered Neuroscience Nanotechnology During the Last Decade

  • Doo-Hun Choi
  • Anthony Dudo
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 3)

Abstract

Nanotechnology has become one of the fastest-growing emerging technologies in the United States. President Bill Clinton established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to increase federal investment in nanotechnology research and development in 2001. In 2003, the U S Congress enacted the twenty-first Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act to evaluate and promote federal nanotechnology research, development, and other activities. This research and development in nanotechnology has led to the advancement of nanotechnology applications and products. For example, consumers can find over 1,000 nanotechnology applications on the market, ranging from tennis rackets to skin care products (Scheufele and Dudo 2010). The social penetration of nanotechnology has raised concerns as an important social issue associated with its potential benefits and risks (Scheufele and Lewenstein 2005). News media have been covering nanotechnology issues for decades, helping to shape how the public understand and perceive the new technology, and whether they support the technology or not (Scheufele and Lewenstein 2005; Weaver et al. 2009).

Keywords

Media Coverage News Article News Story Nanotechnology Research News Coverage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bainbridge, W.S. 2002. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4(6): 561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard, A.S. 2009. How can ab initio simulations address risks in nanotech? Nature Nanotechnology 4(6): 332–335.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brossard, D., and M.C. Nisbet. 2006. Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 19: 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brossard, D., D.A. Scheufele, E. Kim, and B.V. Lewenstein. 2008. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 546–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb, M., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6: 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Currall, S.C. 2009. Nanotechnology and society: New insights into public perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 79–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Downs, A. 1972. Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. The Public Interest 28: 38–50.Google Scholar
  8. Dudo, A., S. Dunwoody, and D.A. Scheufele. 2009. The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in media coverage of nanotechnology. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  9. Dunwoody, S. 1980. The science writing inner club: A communications link between science and the lay public. Science, Technology, and Human Values 5: 14–22.Google Scholar
  10. Friedman, S.M., and B.P. Egolf. 2005. Nanotechnology risks and the media. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 24(4): 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 Science 14(1): 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoet, P.H.M., I. Brüske-Hohlfeld, and O.V. Salata. 2004. Nanoparticles-known and unknown health risks. Journal of Nanobiotechnology 2(1): 12. doi: 10.1186/1477-3155-2-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horrigan, J. 2006. The internet as a resource for news and information about science. Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/The-Internet-as-a-Resource-for-News-andInformation-about-Science.aspx. Accessed 21 June 2010.
  14. Keefer, E.W., B.R. Botterman, M.I. Romero, A.F. Rossi, and G.W. Gross. 2008. Carbon nanotube coating improves neuronal recordings. Nature Nanotechnology 3(7): 434–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuzma, J. 2007. Moving forward responsibly: Oversight for the nanotechnology-biology interface. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9(1): 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mooney, C. 2008. The science writer’s lament. Scienceprogress.com. http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/10/the-science-writers-lament/. Accessed 24 June 2010.
  17. Mooney, C. 2010. Do scientists understand the public? Cambridge: American Academies of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
  18. Nisbet, M.C., and B.V. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American public: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication 23: 359–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parpura, V. 2008. Instrumentation: Carbon nanotubes on the brain. Nature Nanotechnology 3(7): 384–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Riffe, D., S. Lacy, and F.G. Fico. 2005. Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research, 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge (eds.). 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Scheufele, D.A. 2006. Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, ed. J. Turney, 20–5. London: The Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  23. Scheufele, D.A., and A. Dudo. 2010. Emerging agendas at the intersection of political and science communication: The case of nanotechnology. In Communication yearbook 34, ed. C.T. Salmon, 143–167. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Scheufele, D.A., and B.V. Lewenstein. 2005. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7(6): 659–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scheufele, D.A., E.A. Corley, T.-J. Shih, K.E. Dalrymple, and S.S. Ho. 2009. Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the US. Nature Nanotechnology 4(2): 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Silva, G.A. 2004. Introduction to nanotechnology and its applications to medicine. Surgical Neurology 61(3): 216–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silva, G.A. 2006a. Neuroscience nanotechnology: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Silva, G.A. 2006b. Nanomedicine: Seeing the benefits of ceria. Nature Nanotechnology 1(2): 92–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stephens, L.F. 2005. News narratives about nano SandT in major US and non-US newspapers. Science Communication 27(2): 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. 2008. The state of the news media: An annual report on American journalism. http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2008/index.php. Accessed 24 June 2010.
  31. Weaver, D.A., E. Lively, and B. Bimber. 2009. Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Science Communication 31(2): 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Doo-Hun Choi
    • 1
  • Anthony Dudo
    • 1
  • Dietram A. Scheufele
    • 1
  1. 1.Life Sciences Communication, College of Agricultural & Life SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Hiram Smith HallMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations