Emerging Agendas at the Intersection of Political and Science Communication The Case of Nanotechnology

References

• Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, A., Petersen, A., Wilkinson, C., & Allan, S. (2009). Nanotechnology, risk and communication. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nano-particle Research, 4(6), 561–570.
   Google Scholar
• Batt, C. A. (2008). Thinking small is not easy. Nature Nanotechnology, 5(3), 121–122.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, L. (2009). Engaging the public in public policy: How far should museums go? Museums & Social Issues, 4(1), 21–36.
   Google Scholar
• Beringer, J. E. (1999). Cautionary tale on safety of GM crops. Nature, 599(6735), 405–405.
   Google Scholar
• Berube, D. M. (2008). Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 23–37.
   Google Scholar
• Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B. V., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099–1121.
   Google Scholar
• Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52.
   Google Scholar
• Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Kim, E., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546–558.
   Google Scholar
• Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass communication. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 662–704.
   Google Scholar
• Burri, R. V., & Bellucci, S. (2008). Public perception of nanotechnology. [Editorial Material]. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(3), 387–391.
   Google Scholar
• Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (in press). From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Cicerone, R. J. (2007). Celebrating and rethinking science communication. In Focus, 6(3), 3.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, M. D. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 221–239.
   Google Scholar
• Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 395–405.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corley, E. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). Outreach gone wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences. The Scientist, 24(1), 22.
   Google Scholar
• Corley, E. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Hu, Q. (2009). Of risks and regulations: How leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. Journal of Nano-particle Research, 11(7), 1573-1585. doi:10.1007/s11051-009-9671–5
   Google Scholar
• Dahlstrom, M. F., & Scheufele, D. A. (in press). Prime time risks: A cultivation look at effects of channel diversity and exposure purpose on environmental risk perceptions. Environmental Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, C. (2008, December 10). Panel criticizes U.S. effort on nanomaterial risks. New York Times. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from http://www.nytimes. com/2008/12/11/science/11nano.html
   Google Scholar
• Delborne, J. A. (2005). Pathways of scientific dissent in agricultural biotechnology. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology—the “issue-attention cycle.” Public Interest (28), 38–50.
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. A., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2009, August). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009, August). The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic trends and changes in media coverage of nanotechnol-ogy. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., & Dudo, A. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299–314.
   Google Scholar
• Dunwoody, S., & Scott, B. T. (1982). Scientists as mass media sources. Journalism Quarterly, 59(1), 52–59.
   Google Scholar
• Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.
   Google Scholar
• Eveland, W. P., & Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17(3), 215–237.
   Google Scholar
• Fackelmann, K. (1999, May 20). Engineered corn kills butterflies, study says. USA Today, p. 1A.
   Google Scholar
• Fedoroff, N. V., & Brown, N. M. (2004). Mendel in the kitchen: A scientist’s view of genetically modified food. Washington, DC: National Academies Press/Joseph Henry Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, S. M., & Egolf, B. P. (2005). Nanotechnology: Risks and the media. IEEE Technology & Society Magazine, 24, 5–11.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, S. M., & Egolf, B. P. (2007). Changing patterns of mass media coverage of nanotechnology risks. Paper presented at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnolo-gies, Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Funkhouser, G. R. (1973). The issues of the sixties: An exploratory study in the dynamics of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(1), 62–75.
   Google Scholar
• Gans, H. J. (1983). News Media, News Policy, and Democracy—Research for the Future. Journal of Communication, 33(3), 174–184.
   Google Scholar
• Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2005). Imagining nanotechnol-ogy: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 81–90.
   Google Scholar
• Gerbner, G. (1987). Science on television-How it affects public conceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 5(3), 109–115.
   Google Scholar
• Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1974). System of cultural indicators. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 460–461.
   Google Scholar
• Gerbner, G., Gross, L. P., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1981). Scientists on the TV screen. Culture and Society, 42, 51–54.
   Google Scholar
• Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Gorss, J., & Lewenstein, B. (2005). The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the annual International Communication Association conference, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, O. (2009). Artificial life: Top five examples from film and fiction. The Telegraph. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science- andtechnology/science/4986533/Artificial-life-top-five-examples-from-film-and-fiction.html
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109.
   Google Scholar
• Ham, B. (2007). Science has a “serious marketing problem,” says Google founder Larry Page. AAAs 2007 Annual Meeting News Blog. Retrieved February 17, 2007, from http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007_ann_mtg/127.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, E. (2009). Research, not relations: Why scientists should leave communications to the pros. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/research_not_relations.php.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Cohen, G., & Kysar, D. (2008). Biased assimilation, polarization, and cultural credibility: An experimental study of nan-otechnology risk perceptions. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Research [Brief No. 3]. Washinton, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. In T. Frangsmyr (Ed.), Les Prix Nobel: The Nobel Prizes 2002 (pp. 449–489). Stockholm, Sweden: Nobel Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, E., & Berry, J. (2003). The influentials. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Khushf, G. (2006). An ethic for enhancing human performance through integrative technologies. In W. S. Bainbridge & M. C. Roco (Eds.), Managing nano-bio-info-cogno innovations: Converging technologies in society (pp. 255–278). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kirby, D. A. (2003). Science consultants, fictional films, and scientific practice. Social Studies of Science, 55(2), 231–268.
   Google Scholar
• Kohut, A., Keeter, S., Doherty, C., & Dimock, M. (2009). Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago: Public praises science; scientists fault public, media.
   Google Scholar
• The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey
   Google Scholar
• Krieghbaum, H. (1967). Science and the mass media. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laing, A. (2005). A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. Retrieved March, 30, from http://www.nanotechproject. org/events/archive/new_page/
   Google Scholar
• Lazarsfeld, P. M., Berelson, B. R., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (2nd ed.). New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. J., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnol-ogy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 819–834.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies—Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240–267.
   Google Scholar
• Lippmann, W. (1922/1997). Public opinion. New York: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Losey, J. E., Rayor, L. S., & Carter, M. E. (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature, 399(6733), 214–214.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, A. D., Aitken, R. J., Butz, T., Colvin, V., Donaldson, K., Oberdorster, G., et al. (2006). Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature, 444(7117), 267–269.
   Google Scholar
• McQuail, D. (2005). Mass communication theory (5th ed.). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mervis, J. (2009). An inside/outside view of U.S. science. Science, 325(5937), 132–133.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. D. (1992). Toward a scientific understanding of the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 23–26.
   Google Scholar
• National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2008). FY 2009 budget & highlights. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://www.nano.gov/NNI_FY09_budget_summary.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2008). Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (Chapter 7). National Science Foundation. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://www.nsf. gov/statistics/seind08/
   Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (Chapter 7). National Science Foundation. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from http://www.nsf. gov/statistics/seind10/
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, W. R. (1981). Differentiation and integration: Two dimensions of political thinking. The American Journal of Sociology, 86(6), 1236–1268.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. N. (1992). Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science — The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics, 8(2), 36–70.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., & Huge, M. (2006). Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(2), 3–40.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2007). The future of public engagement. The Scientist, 21(10), 38–44.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584–608.
   Google Scholar
• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1973). Return to the concept of powerful mass media. Studies in Broadcasting, 9, 67–112.
   Google Scholar
• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The spiral of silence: Public opinion, our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ogilvy, D. (1963). Confessions of an advertising man. New York: Ballantine Books.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, R. (2009). Don’t be such a scientist: Talking substance in an age of style. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, T. D. (2006). The ethics of nanotechnology: A Lutheran reflection. Journal of Lutheran Ethics, 6(2). Retrieved from http://archive.elca.org/ScriptLib/dcs/jle/ article.asp?aid=629
   Google Scholar
• Peter D. Hart Research Associates. (2006). Public awareness of nano grows — majority remain unaware. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www. nanotechproject.org/78/public-awareness-of-nano-grows-but-majority-unaware
   Google Scholar
• Peter D. Hart Research Associates. (2007). Awareness of and attitudes toward nano-technology and federal regulatory agencies. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.nanotechproject.org/138/9252007-poll-reveals-public-awareness-of- nanotech-stuck-at-low-level
   Google Scholar
• Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigne, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., et al. (2008). Science communication: Interactions with the mass media. Science, 521(5886), 204–205.
   Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K., & Rogers-Hayden, T. (2009). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 95–98.
   Google Scholar
• Poland, C. A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W. A. H., Seaton, A., et al. (2008). Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology, 5(7), 423–428.
   Google Scholar
• Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 173–212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, S. H. (2008). Biotechnology, nanotechnology, media, and public opinion. In K. David & P. B. Thompson (Eds.), What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs (pp. 221–234). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2003). Converging technologies for improving human performance. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Rodgers, P. (2007). A little knowledge. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(12), 731.
   Google Scholar
• Rodgers, P. (2009). Getting to know the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 71.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20–25). London: The Wellcome Trust.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A. (2007). Nano does not have a marketing problem — yet. Nano Today, 2(5), 48.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., Dunwoody, S., Corley, E. A., Guston, D. H., & Peters, H. P. (2009). Are scientists really out of touch? The Scientist. Retrieved from www.the-scientist.com/news/display/55875/
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T.-J., Hillback, E., & Guston, D. H. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(12), 732–734.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the US. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 91–94.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659–667.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.
   Google Scholar
• Schutz, H., & Wiedemann, P. M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 369–379.
   Google Scholar
• Schweitzer, S. (2005, October 24). Building a buzz on campus. The Boston Globe, p. A1.
   Google Scholar
• Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, J. E., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shelton, A. M., & Roush, R. T. (1999). False reports and the ears of men. Nature Biotechnology, 17(9), 832–832.
   Google Scholar
• Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49(2), 459–466.
   Google Scholar
• Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59–69.
   Google Scholar
• Siegrist, M., Wiek, A., Helland, A., & Kastenholz, H. (2007). Risks and nanotechnol-ogy: The public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(2).
   Google Scholar
• Skapinker, M. (2007, October 29). Scientists must learn to talk to the media. Financial Times, p. 11.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A., & Rainie, L. (2008). The Internet and the 2008 election. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/ PPF/r/252/report_display.asp
   Google Scholar
• Stephens, L. F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Science Communication, 27(2), 175–199.
   Google Scholar
• Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). News framing theory and research. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 17–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press. (2008). Audience segments in a changing news environment: Key news audiences new blend online and traditional sources. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444. pdf
   Google Scholar
• Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(2), 159–170.
   Google Scholar
• Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weimann, G. (1994). The influentials: People who influence people. New York: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, R. (1999, May 20). Biotech vs. ‘Bambi’ of insects? Gene-altered corn may kill Monarchs. Washinton Post, p. A3.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, R. (2006, April 6). Nanotech product recalled in Germany. Washington Post, p. A2.
   Google Scholar
• Whitmarsh, L. (2009). What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming.” Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 401–420.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkes, M. S., & Kravitz, R. L. (1992). Medical researchers and the media. Attitudes toward public dissemination of research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268(8), 999–1003.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, C., Allan, S., Anderson, A., & Petersen, A. (2007). From uncertainty to risk?: Scientific and news media portrayals of nanoparticle safety. Health Risk & Society, 9(2), 145–157.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2007). Nanotechnology, from the science to the social: The social, ethical, and economic aspects of the debate. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.esrcso-cietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC_Nano07_tcm6–18918.pdf
   Google Scholar