New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists' standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames

Health, Risk and Society

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 173-190

  Powell, Maria C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Framing; Nanotechnology; Risk frames; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

NANOMATERIAL;

ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PROCESS TECHNOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIST; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY;

EID: 34347219400     PISSN: 13698575     EISSN: 14698331     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13698570701306872     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aitken, R. J., Creely, K. S. and Tran, C. L. (2004) Nanoparticles: An Occupational Hygiene Review, Health & Safety Executive, Suffolk, United Kingdom
2. Alaszewski, A. (2005) Risk communication: Identifying the importance of social context. Health, Risk & Society, 7:2, pp. 101-105.
3. Althaus, C. E. (2005) A disciplinary perspective on the epistemological status of risk. Risk Analysis, 25:3, pp. 567-588.
4. Altheide, D. L. (1996) Qualitative Media Analysis, Qualitative Research Methods Series. 38, Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA
5. Aronowitz, S. (1988) Science As Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN
6. Beck, U. (1995) Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA
7. Borm, P. A. and Kreyling, W. (2004) Toxicological hazards of inhaled nanoparticles - Potential implications for drug delivery. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 4:5, pp. 521-531.
8. Cook, G., Peter, T., Robbins, P. T. and Pieri, E. (2006) Words of mass destruction: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science, 15, pp. 5-29.
9. Cook, G., Pieri, E. and Robbins, P. T. (2004) 'The scientists think and the public feels:' Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society, 15:4, pp. 433-449.
10. Ding, L., Stilwell, J., Zhang, T., Elboudwarej, O., Jiang, H., Selegue, J. P., Cooke, P. A., Gray, J. W. and Chen, F. F. (2005) Molecular characterization of the cytotoxic mechanism of multiwall carbon nanotubes and nano-onions on human skin fibroblast. Nano Letters, 5:12, pp. 2448-2464.
11. Donaldson, K., Stone, V., Tran, C. L., Kreyling, W. and Borm, P. J. A. (2004) Nanotoxicology. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61, pp. 727-728.
12. Driedger, S. M. and Eyles, J. (2003) Different frames, different fears: Communicating about chlorinated drinking water and cancer in the Canadian media. Social Science & Medicine, 56, pp. 1279-1293.
13. Environmental Law Institute (2005) Securing the promise of nanotechnology: Is U.S. law up to the job? The Environmental Law Institute and the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC, USA.
14. Fisher, M., Small, B., Roth, H., Mallon, M. and Jerebine, B. (2005) What do individuals in different science groups within a life sciences organization think about genetic modification?. Public Understanding of Science, 14, pp. 317-326.
15. (1999) Communicating Uncertainty Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
16. Funtowics, S. O. and Ravetz, J. R. (1990) Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, (Theory and Decision Library, Series A 15). Kluwer, Dordrecht
17. Gieryn, T. F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
18. Gitlin, T. (1980) The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
19. Godin, B. and Gingras, Y. (2000) What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model. Public Understanding of Science, 9, pp. 43-58.
20. Harding, S. (1998) Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN
21. Hardman, R. (2005) A toxicological review of quantum dots: Toxicity depends on physico-chemical and environmental factors. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114:2, pp. 165-172.
22. Hett, A. (2004) Small matter, many unknowns (Swiss Reinsurance Company).
23. Holsapple, M. P., Farland, W. H., Landry, T. D., Monteiro-riviere, N. A., Carter, J. M., Walker, N. J. and Thomas, K. V. (2005) Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials. II. Toxicological and safety evaluation of nanomaterials, current challenges and data needs. Toxicological Sciences, 88:1, pp. 12-17.
24. Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A. and Webler, T. (2001) Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action, Earthscan, Sterling, VA
25. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
26. Jefferson, D. A. (2000) The surface activity of ultrafine particles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 358, pp. 2683-2691.
27. Kiernan, V. (2000) The Mars meteorite: A case study in controls on dissemination of science news. Public Understanding of Science, 9, pp. 15-41.
28. Kipen, H. M. and Laskin, D. L. (2005) Smaller is not always better: Nanotechnology yields nanotoxicology. American Journal of Physiology, 289, pp. L696-L697.
29. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T. and Slovic, P. (1992) Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12:2, pp. 215-231.
30. Von Krauss, M. P. Krayer, Casman, E. A. and Small, M. J. (2004) Elicitation of expert judgments of uncertainty in the risk assessment of herbicide-tolerant oilseed crops. Risk Analysis, 24:6, pp. 1515-1527.
31. Krewski, D., Burnett, R. T., Goldberg, M., Hoover, K., Siematycki, J., Abrahamowicz, M. and White, W. (2005) Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study, Part II: Validation and replication. Inhalation Toxicology, 17:78, pp. 335-342.
32. Lam, C. W., James, J. T., Mcclusky, R. and Hunter, R. L. (2004) Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7 and 90 days after intratracheal instillation. Toxicological Sciences, 77, pp. 126-134.
33. Lukasiewicz, J. (1994) The Ignorance Explosion: Understanding Industrial Civilization, Carleton University Press, Ottawa, Canada
34. Lux Research, Inc. (2004) Revenue from nanotechnology-enabled products to equal IT and Telecom by 2014, exceed Biotech by 10 times.
35. McMahon, S., Lutz, R. and Meyer, Jon'a. (2002) Attitudes about electric and magnetic fields: Do scientists and other risk experts perceive risk similarly?. Journal of Environmental Health, 65:5, pp. 9-12.
36. Muller, J., Haux, F., Moreau, N., Misson, P., Heilier, J. F., Delos, M., Arras, M., Fonseca, A., Nagy, J. B. and Lison, D. (2005) Respiratory toxicity of multi-wall carbon nanotubes. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 207, pp. 221-231.
37. National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2005) Nanotechnology, approaches to safe nanotechnology; An information exchange with NIOSH.
38. Nelkin, D. (1987) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY
39. Nelkin, D. (1995) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY
40. Oberdorster, G., Oberdorster, E. and Oberdorster, J. (2005) Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113:7, pp. 823-839.
41. Pope, C. A., Burnett, R. T., Thun, M. J., Calle, E. E., Krewski, D., Ito, K. and Thurston, G. D. (2002) Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, pp. 1132-1141.
42. Powell, M. and Kanarek, M. (2006) Nanomaterial health effects, Part 2: Uncertainties and recommendations for the future. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 102:3, pp. 18-23.
43. Preining, O. (1998) The physical nature of very, very small particles and its impact on their behavior. Journal of Aerosol Science, 29, pp. 481-495.
44. Riem, H. H. and Wynne, B. (2002) In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance. Nature, 416:6877, p. 123.
45. Roco, M. C. (2004) The US nanotechnology initiative after 3 years (2001-2003). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, pp. 1-10.
46. Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties.
47. Schutz, H. and Wiedemann, P. M. (2005) How to deal with dissent among experts: Risk evaluation of EMF in a scientific dialogue. Journal of Risk Research, 8:6, pp. 531-545.
48. Slovic, P., Torbjorn, M., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N. and Bartlett, S. (1995) Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15:6, pp. 661-674.
49. Smithson, M. (1989) Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY
50. Stocking, S. H. (1998) On drawing attention to ignorance. Science Communication, 20:1, pp. 165-178.
51. Eyck, T. A. Ten (1999) Shaping a food safety debate: Control efforts of newspaper reporters and sources in the food irradiation controversy. Science Communication, 20:4, pp. 426-450.