Leading US nano-scientists' perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 13, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 7041-7055

  Corley, Elizabeth A ^a   Kim, Youngjae ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

ELSI; Media coverage; Nanotechnology; Perceptions; Public communication; Scientist attitudes; Societal implications; Survey data collection

Indexed keywords

ELSI; MEDIA COVERAGE; PERCEPTIONS; PUBLIC COMMUNICATION; SCIENTIST ATTITUDES; SOCIETAL IMPLICATIONS; SURVEY DATA COLLECTION;

NANOTECHNOLOGY; RESEARCH; SURVEYS;

COMMUNICATION;

ARTICLE; HUMAN; MASS COMMUNICATION; MASS MEDIUM; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84857063511     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: 1572896X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-011-0617-3     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. AAPOR (2009) Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 6th edn. AAPOR, Lenexa
2. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27 (2):200-220 (Pubitemid 41795479)
3. Barke RP, JenkinsSmith H, Slovic P (1997) Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Soc Sci Q 78 (1):167-176
4. Berube DM (2008) Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 10:23-37. doi:10.1007/s11051-008- 9362-7
5. Bostrom A, Lofstedt RE (2010) Nanotechnology risk communication past and prologue. Risk Anal 30 (11):1645-1662. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01521.x
6. Brown S (2009) The new deficit model. Nat Nanotechnol 4 (10):608-610. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.278
7. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading US nano-scientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11 (7):1573-1585
8. Davies SR (2008) Constructing communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Sci Commun 29 (4): 413-434. doi:10.1177/1075547009316222
9. Dibella SM, Ferri AJ, Padderud AB (1991) Scientists' reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: a national survey. Journal Q 68 (4):740-749
10. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2008) Internet mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, Hoboken
11. Dunwoody S, Ryan M (1983) Public information persons as mediators between scientists and journalists. Journal Q 60 (4):647-656
12. Dunwoody S, Scott BT (1982) Scientists as mass media sources. Journal Q 59 (1):52-59
13. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz C, Flynn J, Satterfield TA (2000) Gender, race, and perceived risk: the 'white male' effect. Health Risk Soc 2 (2):159-172
14. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14 (6):1101-1108. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924. 1994.tb00082.x
15. Frewer LJ, Hunt S, Brennan M, Kuznesof S, Ness M, Ritson C (2003) The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. J Risk Res 6 (1):75-85. doi:10.1080/1366987032000047815
16. Gascoigne T, Metcalfe J (1997) Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Sci Commun 18 (3):265-282 (Pubitemid 127337682)
17. Geller G, Bernhardt BA, Gardner M, Rodgers J, Holtzman NA (2005) Scientists' and science writers' experiences reporting genetic discoveries: toward an ethic of trust in science journalism. Genet Med 7 (3):198-205. doi:10.1097/01.gim.0000156699.78856.23 (Pubitemid 40478157)
18. Glass B (1993) The ethical basis of science. In: RE B, Reiser S EH (eds) The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 43-55
19. Greenberg MR, Schneider DF (1995) Gender differences in risk perception: effects differ in stressed vs non-stressed environments. Risk Anal 15 (4):503-511. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00343.x (Pubitemid 26435053)
20. Gunter B, Kinderlerer J, Beyleveld D (1999) The media and public understanding of biotechnology: a survey of scientists and journalists. Sci Commun 20 (4):373-394
21. Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18 (6):805-811
22. Hartz J, Chappell R (1997) Worlds apart: how the distance between science and journalism threatens America's future. First Amendment Center, Nashville
23. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12 (2):215-232. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924. 1992.tb00669.x
24. Kurath M, Gisler P (2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio-and nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18 (5):559-573. doi:10.1177/0963662509104723
25. Lazo JK, Kinnell JC, Fisher A (2000) Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Anal 20 (2):179-193 (Pubitemid 30354439)
26. Lievrouw L (1993) Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Crit Stud Mass Commun 7: 1-10
27. Maille ME, Saint-Charles J, Lucotte M (2010) The gap between scientists and journalists: the case of mercury science in Quebec's press. Public Underst Sci 19 (1):70-79. doi:10.1177/0963662509102690
28. Marchant G, Sylvester D (2006) Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34 (4): 714-725 (Pubitemid 44787833)
29. Marchant G, Sylvester D, Abbott K (2007) Nanotechnology regulation: the United States approach. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Ludlow K (eds) New global frontiers in regulation: the age of nanotechnology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK
30. Marchant G, Sylvester D, Abbott K (2009) A new soft law approach to nanotechnology oversight: a voluntary product certification scheme. UCLA J Environ Law Policy 28 (1): 123-152
31. Mathews DJH, Kalfoglou A, Hudson K (2005) Geneticists' views on science policy formation and public outreach. Am J Med Genet A 137A (2):161-169. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.30849 (Pubitemid 41262683)
32. McInerney C, Bird N, Nucci M (2004) The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: the case of genetically modified food. Sci Commun 26 (1):44-74. doi:10.1177/1075547004267024 (Pubitemid 39110209)
33. Mellor F (2010) Negotiating uncertainty: asteroids, risk and the media. Public Underst Sci 19 (1):16-33. doi:10.1177/0963662507087307
34. Moore B, Singletary M (1985) Scientific sources' perceptions of network news accuracy. Journal Q 62 (4):816-823
35. Nelkin D (1996) An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet 347 (9015):1600-1603 (Pubitemid 26170880)
36. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96 (10):1767-1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041
37. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA, Shanahan J, Moy P, Brossard D, Lewenstein BV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Commun Res 29 (5):584-608. doi:10.1177/009365002236196 (Pubitemid 36668832)
38. Peters HP (1995) The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media Cult Soc 17 (1):31-48. doi:10.1177/016344395017001003
39. Peters HP, Brossard D, de Cheveigné S, Dunwoody S, Kallfass M, Miller S, Tsuchida S (2008) Science communication: interactions with the mass media. Science 321 (5886): 204-205 (Pubitemid 351989079)
40. Petersen A, Anderson A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2007) Nano-technologies, risk and society. Health Risk Soc 9 (2): 117-124. doi:10.1080/13698570701306765 (Pubitemid 46993390)
41. Petersen A, Anderson A, Allan S, Wilkinson C (2009) Opening the black box: scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Underst Sci 18 (5):512-530. doi:10.1177/0963662507084202
42. Phillips DP, Kanter EJ, Bednarczyk B, Tastad PL (1991) Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. N Engl J Med 325 (16):1180-1183
43. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotech-nology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or 'upstream engagement'? Health Risk Soc 9 (2):191-210 (Pubitemid 46993395)
44. Pitkethly M (2009) Nanotechnology, regulation and the environment. Mater Today 12 (1-2):23
45. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck DJ (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10 (5): 715-728 (Pubitemid 351579773)
46. Powell MC, Griffin MPA, Tai S (2008) Bottom-up risk regulation? How nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps challenge federal and state environmental agencies. Environ Manage 42 (3):426-443. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9129-z
47. Rabino I (1998) Societal and commercial issues affecting the future of biotechnology in the United States: a survey of researchers' perceptions. Naturwissenschaften 85 (3): 109-116 (Pubitemid 28166726)
48. Reinert K, Andrews L, Keenan R (2006) Nanotechnology Nexus: intersection of research, science, technology, and regulation. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12 (5):811-818. doi:10.1080/10807030600848601 (Pubitemid 44359762)
49. Ruth A, Lundy L, Telg R, Irani T (2005) Trying to relate: media relations training needs of agricultural scientists. Sci Commun 27 (1):127-145. doi:10.1177/1075547005278347 (Pubitemid 41304871)
50. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T-j, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnol 2 (12):732-734 (Pubitemid 350223352)
51. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D, Mertz CK, Neil N, Bartlett S (1995) Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal 15 (6):661-675. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x (Pubitemid 26048312)
52. Suleski J, Ibaraki M (2010) Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: a quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Underst Sci 19 (1):115-125. doi:10.1177/0963662508096776
53. Treise D, Weigold MF (2002) Advancing science communication: a survey of science communicators. Sci Commun 23 (3):310-322
54. Tyshenko MG, Farhat N, Lewis R, Shilnikova N (2010) Applying a precautionary risk management strategy for regulation of nanotechnology. Int J Nanotechnol 7 (2-3): 243-264
55. Wardak A, Gorman ME, Swami N, Rejeski D (2007) Environmental regulation of nanotechnology and the TSCA. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 26 (2):48-56 (Pubitemid 47385458)
56. Weigold MF (2001) Communicating science: a review of the literature. Sci Commun 23 (2):164-193 (Pubitemid 33744499)