U.S. news coverage of neuroscience nanotechnology: How U.S. newspapers have covered neuroscience nanotechnology during the last decade

Nanotechnology, the Brain, and the Future

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 67-78

  Choi, Doo Hun ^a   Dudo, Anthony ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEUROLOGY; SKIN CARE PRODUCTS;

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; FEDERAL INVESTMENTS; NANOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS; NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH; NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES; NEW TECHNOLOGIES; POTENTIAL BENEFITS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84895066802     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1787-9_4     Document Type: Chapter

References (31)

1. Bainbridge, W.S. 2002. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4(6): 561-570.
2. Barnard, A.S. 2009. How can ab initio simulations address risks in nanotech? Nature Nanotechnology 4(6): 332-335.
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.
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.
5. Cobb, M., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6: 395-405.
6. Currall, S.C. 2009. Nanotechnology and society: New insights into public perceptions. Nature Nanotechnology 4: 79-80.
7. Downs, A. 1972. Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. The Public Interest 28: 38-50.
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.
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.
10. Friedman, S.M., and B.P. Egolf. 2005. Nanotechnology risks and the media. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 24(4): 5-11.
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.
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.
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.
15. Kuzma, J. 2007. Moving forward responsibly: Oversight for the nanotechnology-biology interface. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 9(1): 165-182.
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.
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.
19. Parpura, V. 2008. Instrumentation: Carbon nanotubes on the brain. Nature Nanotechnology 3(7):384-385.
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.
21. Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge (eds.). 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
26. Silva, G.A. 2004. Introduction to nanotechnology and its applications to medicine. Surgical Neurology 61(3): 216-220.
27. Silva, G.A. 2006a. Neuroscience nanotechnology: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7: 65-74.
28. Silva, G.A. 2006b. Nanomedicine: Seeing the benefits of ceria. Nature Nanotechnology 1(2):92-94.
29. Stephens, L.F. 2005. News narratives about nano SandT in major US and non-US newspapers. Science Communication 27(2): 175-199.
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.