Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation

Science Communication

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 139-166

  Weaver, David A ^a   Lively, Erica ^a   Bimber, Bruce ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Frames; Framing; Nanotechnology; Progress; Regulation; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 72249095643     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547009340345     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Althaus, S., Edy, J., & Phalen, P. (2001). Using substitutes for full-text news stories in content analysis: Which text is best? American Journal of Political Science, 45, 707-723.
2. Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27, 200-220.
3. Anderson, A., Petersen, A., Wilkinson. C., & Allan, S. (2009). Nanotechnology, risk and communication. New York: Palgrave.
4. Arnall, A.H. (2003). Future technologies, today's choices: Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics-a technical, political, and institutional map of emerging technologies. London: Greenpeace Environmental Trust.
5. Bennett, W.L. (2009). News: The politics of illusion (8th ed.). New York: Pearson.
6. Besley, J.C., Kramer, V.L., & Priest, S. (2008). Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risk, benefits, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 549-558.
7. Bijker, W., Hughes, T.P., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
8. Blum, D., & Knudson, M. (Eds.). (1997). A field guide for science writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Cobb, M. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 221-239.
10. Cobb, M., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions of nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.
11. Druckman, J.N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir) relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
12. Druckman, J.N., & Nelson, K.R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729-745.
13. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Knopf.
14. Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
15. ETC Group. (2003). The big down: Atomtech-technologies converging at the nano-scale. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Author.
16. Friedman, S.M., & Egolf, B.P. (2005). Nanotechnology risks and the media. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 24, 5-11.
17. Friedman, S.M., & Egolf, B.P. (2007, December 18). Changing patterns of mass media coverage of nanotechnology risks. Presentation for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC. Retrieved May 5, 2009, at www.nanotechproject.org/process/files/5920/woodrowwilsonwashingtondec182007final.pdf.
18. Friends of the Earth. (2007). Nanotechnology and sunscreens: A consumer guide for avoiding nano-sunscreens. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Author.
19. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2005). Nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 81-90.
20. Gorss, J.B., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005, May). The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, New York.
21. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago.
22. 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, 240-267.
23. Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). What counts as a social and ethical issue in nanotechnology? HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 11, 5-18. Retrieved August 28, 2007, from www.hyle.org/journal/issues/11-1/lewenstein.htm#ad.
24. Mantovani, E., Porcari, A., Meili, C., & Widmer, M. (2009). Mapping study on regulation and governance of nanotechnologies (FramingNano Project Consortium). Retrieved May 22, 2009, fromwww.framingnano.eu/images/stories/FramingNanoMappingStudyFinal.pdf.
25. Maynard-Moody, S. (1992). The fetal research dispute. In D. Nelkin (Ed.), Controversy: Politics of technical decisions (3rd ed., pp. 3-25). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. Maynard-Moody, S. (1995). Managing controversies over science: The case of fetal research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5, 5-8.
27. Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A., & Oxley, Z.M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583.
28. 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, 36-70.
29. Paletz, D., & Entman, R. (1981). Media power politics, New York: Free Press.
30. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2003). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2005). The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, Washington, DC. Retrieved July 15, 2005, from www.nano.gov/FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf.
32. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (Eds.). (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Washington, DC: U.S. National Science and Technology Council, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology.
33. Sandler, R., & Kay, W.D. (2006). The GMO-Nanotech (dis)analogy? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26, 57-62.
34. Scheufele, D.A., Corley, E.A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T.-S., Hillback, E., & Guston, D.H. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, 732-734.
35. Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
36. Schütz, H., & Wiedemann, P. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 369-379.
37. Smith, M. (2005, December 8). As nanoparticles enter our lives, stepped up research urged on potential risks. Associated Press. Accessed from LexisNexis.
38. Stephens, L.F. 2005. News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U. S. newspapers. Science Communication, 27, 175-199.
39. Weaver, D.A., & Bimber, B. (2008). Finding news stories: A comparison of searches using LexisNexis and Google News. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 515-530.
40. Weiss, R. (2005, December 5). Nanotechnology regulation needed, critics say. The Washington Post. Accessed from LexisNexis.
41. Wilkinson, C., Allan, S., Anderson, A., & Petersen, A. (2007). From uncertainty to risk? Scientific and news media portrayals and nanoparticle safety. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 145-157.