The ethics of framing science

Communicating Biological Sciences: Ethical and Metaphorical Dimensions

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 51-73

  Nisbet, Matthew C ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900235674     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Bauer, M. 2008. Survey research and the public understanding of science. In M. Bucchi and B. Smart (eds), Handbook of Public Communication on Science and Technology. London: Routledge, 111-130.
2. Besley, J.C., Kramer, V.L., Yao, Q. and Toumey, C.P. 2008. Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement on emerging technology. Science Communication, 30(4), 209-235.
3. Besley, J.C. and McComas, K.A. 2005. Framing justice: Using the concept of procedural justice to advance political communication research. Communication Theory, 4, 414-436.
4. Bipartisan Policy Center 2009. Science for Policy Project: Interim Report. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/9982.
5. Borchelt, R. and Hudson, K. 2008. Engaging the scientific community with the public. Science Progress, Spring/Summer, 78-81.
6. Christians, C. (2008). Ethics in journalism. In W. Donsbach (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Volume 1. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
7. Clark, J. and Aufderheide, P. 2009. Public Media 2.0: Dynamic, Engaged Publics. Washington, DC: Center for Social Media, American University. Available at http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/documents/whitepaper.pdf.
8. Croteau, D., Hoynes, W. and Ryan, C. 2005. Rhyming Hope and History: Activists, Academics, and Social Movement Scholarship. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
9. CSEC. 2001. Public Attitudes to Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe: Final Report of PABE Project, CSEC, Lancaster University. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/csec/.
10. Dahinden, U. 2002. Biotechnology in Switzerland: Frames in a heated debate. Science Communication, 24, 184-197.
11. Danielian, L.H. 2008. Accuracy. In W. Donsbach (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Volume 1. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
12. Dawkins, R. 2006. The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
13. Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
14. Dunlap, R.E. and McCright, A.M. 2008. A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment 50, 5, 26-35.
15. Durant, J., Bauer, M.W. and Gaskell, G. 1998. Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: A European Sourcebook. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
16. Einsiedel, E. 2008. Public engagement and dialogue: a research review. In M. Bucchi and B. Smart (eds), Handbook of Public Communication on Science and Technology. London: Routledge, 173-184.
17. FASEB. (2008). Science and its discontents. Editorial. Coalition of Scientific Societies. FASEB Journal, 22: 1-4.
18. Ferree, M.M., Gamson, W.A., Gerhards, J. and Rucht, J. 1992. Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19. Gamson, W.A. (1992). Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Gamson, W.A. and Modigliani, A. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
21. Goidel, K. and Nisbet, M.C. 2006. Exploring the roots of public participation in the controversy over stem cell research and cloning. Political Behavior, 28(2), 175-192.
22. Goldston, D. 2008. The Sputnik myth. Nature, 456, 561.
23. Hellsten, I. and Nerlich, B. 2008. Genetics and genomics: The politics and ethics of metaphorical framing. In M. Bucchi and B. Smart (eds), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, 93-109.
24. Hilgartner, S. 2000. Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25. Holland, E.A., Pleasant, A., Quatrano, S., Gerst, R., Nisbet, M.C. and Mooney, C. 2007. Letters: The risks and advantages of framing science. Science, 317 (5842), 1168b.
26. Irwin, A. and Michael, M. 2003. Science, Social Theory, and Public Knowledge. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
27. Labov, J. and Pope, B.K. 2008. Understanding Our Audiences: The Design and Evolution of Science, Evolution, and Creationism. CBE-Life Sciences Education.
28. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E. and Roser-Renouf, C. 2008. Global warming's six Americas. Yale University Project on Climate Change. Available at http://research.yale.edu/environment/uploads/SixAmericas.pdf.
29. Marris, C. 2001. Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Reports, 2, 7, 545-548.
30. McKibbon, B. 2008. The Bill McKibbon Reader. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
31. Mooney, C. 2005. The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books.
32. Mutz, D. 2006. How the mass media divide us. In P. Nivola and D.W. Brady (eds), Red and Blue Nation? Volume 1. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 223-263.
33. National Academies of Science and Institute of Medicine 2008. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
34. National Science Board (NSB) 2008. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. NSB 08-01; NSB 08-01A. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
35. Nisbet, M.C. 2008. Ben Stein's Trojan Horse: Mobilizing the state house and local news agenda. Skeptical Inquirer, 32, 5, 16-18.
36. Nisbet, M.C. 2009a. Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In L. Kahlor and P. Stout (eds), Understanding Science: New Agendas in Science Communication. New York: Taylor and Francis, forthcoming.
37. Nisbet, M.C. 2009b. Communicating climate change: Why frames matter to public engagement. Environment, 51(2) 12-23.
38. Nisbet, M.C. and Goidel, K. 2007. Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 421-440.
39. Nisbet, M.C. and Huge, M 2006. Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: Managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11, 2, 3-40.
40. Nisbet, M.C. and Lewenstein, B.V. 2002. Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23(4), 359-391.
41. Pan, Z. and Kosicki, G.M. 1993. Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55-75.
42. Pew 2008, 8 May. A Deeper Partisan Divide on Global Warming. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved on November 15, 2008, from http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deeper-partisan-divide-over-global-warming.
43. Pielke, R. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. London: Cambridge University Press.
44. Popkin, S.L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
45. Powell, M. and Kleinman, D. 2008. Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 3, 329-348.
46. Price, V., Nir, L. and Capella, J.N. 2005. Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(2), 179-212.
47. Prior, M. 2005. News v. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 577.
48. Revkin, A. 2007. Climate change as news: Challenges in communicating environmental science. In J.C. DiMento and P.M. Doughman (eds), Climate Change: What it Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Boston, MA: MIT Press, 139-160.
49. Revkin, A. 2009, Feb. 24. In climate debate, exaggeration is a pitfall. New York Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/science/earth/25hype.html.
50. Scheufele, D.A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 29, 103-123.
51. 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. London: The Wellcome Trust, pp. 20-25.
52. Scheufele, D.A. and Tewksbury, D. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
53. The Scientist 2007. Here's what you think. The Scientist, 21(10), 42.
54. Tierney, J. 2009, February 23. Findings: Politics in the guise of pure science. New York Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/science/24tier.html.
55. Time 2006, April 3. Global warming: Be worried. Be very worried. Retrieved on November 15, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html.
56. Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304.