Nanotechnology, risk and communication

Nanotechnology, Risk and Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 1-179

  Anderson, Alison ^a   Petersen, Alan ^b   Wilkinson, Clare ^c   Allan, Stuart ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^b MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^d BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016561993     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1057/9780230234574     Document Type: Book

References (314)

1. Adam, B. (2000a) ‘The Media Timescapes of BSE News’, in S. Allan, B. Adam, U. Beck, and J. Van Loon (eds) Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: Sage.
2. Adam, B. (2000b) ‘The Temporal Gaze: The Challenge for Social Theory in the Context of GM Food’, The British Journal of Sociology, 51 (1), 125-142.
3. Adam, B., Beck, U., and J. Van Loon (eds) (2000) The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: Sage.
4. Ali, N., Lo, T., Auvache, V., and P. White (2001) ‘Bad Press for Doctors: 21 Year Survey of Three National Newspapers’, British Medical Journal, 323 (7316), 782-783.
5. Allan, S. (2002) Media, Risk and Science. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
6. Allan, S. (2004) News Culture (second edition). Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
7. Allan, S. (2006) Online News: Journalism and the Internet. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
8. Allan, S (2008) ‘Making Science Newsworthy: Exploring the Conventions of Science Journalism’, in R. Holliman, J. Thomas, S. Smidt, E. Scanlon, and L. Whitelegg (eds) Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Allan, S., Adam, B., and C. Carter (eds) (2000) Environmental Risks and the Media. London: Routledge.
10. Allan, S., Anderson, A., and A. Petersen (2005) ‘Reporting Risk: Science Journalism and the Prospect of Human Cloning’, in S. Watson and A. Moran (eds) Risk, Trust and Uncertainty. London: Palgrave.
11. Anderson, A. (1993) The Production of Environmental News: A Study of Source-Media Relations. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Greenwich.
12. Anderson, A. (1997) Media, Culture and the Environment. London: UCL.
13. Anderson, A (2003) ‘Environmental Activism and News Sources’, in S. Cottle (ed.) News, Public Relations and Power. London: Sage.
14. Anderson, A (2006) ‘The Media and Risk’, in G. Mythen and S. Walklate (eds) Beyond the Risk Society: Critical Reflections on Risk and Human Security. Buckingham: Open University Press.
15. Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., and C. Wilkinson (2008) ‘Nanoethics: News Media and the Shaping of Public Agendas’, in R. Luppicini and R. Adell (eds) Handbook of Research on Technoethics, Information Science Reference.
16. Anderson, A., Petersen, A., and M. David (2005) ‘Communication or Spin? Source-media Relations in Science’, in S. Allan (ed.) Journalism: Critical Issues. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
17. Anderson, A., Petersen, A., Wilkinson, C., and S. Allan (2005) ‘The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press’, Science Communication, 27 (2), 200-220.
18. Anderson, B (2007) ‘Hope for Nanotechnology: Anticipatory Knowledge and Governance of Affect’, Area, 19 (2), 156-165.
19. Australian Nanotechnology Alliance (2007) Australian Nanotechnology Alliance: Supporting a New Era in Traditional Industries, Media Release, 23 November 2007. http://www.nanotechnology.org.au/documents/media_releases/Media_Release-AGM_Nov_2007.pdf accessed 7th June 2008.
20. Bachrach, P. and M. Baratz (1962) ‘The Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, 57 (December), 947-952.
21. Bainbridge, W.S (2002) ‘Public Attitudes towards Nanotechnology’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4 (6), 561-570.
22. Bainbridge,W.S (2004) ‘Sociocultural Meanings of Nanotechnology: Research Methodologies’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6 (2), 285-299.
23. Bartlett, C., Sterne, J., and M. Egger (2002) ‘What is Newsworthy? Longitudinal Study of the Reporting of Medical Research in Two British Newspapers’, British Medical Journal, 325 (7355), 81-84.
24. Bauer, M.W. and G. Gaskell (eds) (2002) Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Bauer, M.W. and M. Bucchi (eds) (2007) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. London: Routledge.
26. Beck, U. (1992a) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
27. Beck, U. (1992b) ‘From Industrial Society to Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment’, Theory, Culture and Society, 9 (1), 97-123.
28. Beck, U (1996) ‘Risk Society and the Provident State’, in S. Lash, B. Szerzynski, and B. Wynne (eds) Risk Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage.
29. Beck, U (2002) ‘The Silence of Words and Political Dynamics in the World Risk Society’, Logos, 1.4. http://logosonline.home.igc.org/beck.htm accessed 19 February 2008.
30. Beck, U. (2006) The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity.
31. Bell, D. (2005) Science, Technology and Culture. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
32. Bell, T.E. (2006) Reporting Risk Assessment of Nanotechnology: A Reporter’s Guide. National Nanotechnology Initiative, http://www.nano.gov/html/news/reporting_risk_assessment_of_nanotechnology.pdf accessed 16 May 2008.
33. Berube, D. (2006) Nano-Hype: The Truth behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. Ambherst and New York: Prometheus Books.
34. Best, S. and D. Kellner (2001) The Postmodern Adventure. London and New York: Routledge.
35. Blum, D. and M. Knudson (1997a) ‘Editors’ Note’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Blum, D. and M. Knudson (1997b) ‘Techniques of the Trade’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Bourdieu, P. (1998) On Television and Journalism. London: Pluto Press.
38. Bowman, D.M. and G.A. Hodge (2007) ‘Nanotechnology and Public Interest Dialogue: Some International Observations’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 27 (2), 118-132.
39. Broks, P. (2006) Understanding Popular Science. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
40. Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., and T.C. Nesbitt (eds) (2007) The Public, the Media and Agricultural Biotechnology. London: CABI.
41. Brown, N (2003) ‘Hope against Hype - Accountability in Biopasts, Presents and Futures’, Science Studies, 16 (2), 3-21.
42. Brown, N. (2006) ‘Shifting Tenses: From “Regimes of Truth” to “Regimes of Hope." ’ University of York, UK: Science and Technology Studies Unit.
43. Brown, N. and A. Webster (2004) New Medical Technologies and Society: Reordering Life. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity:
44. Bubela, T.M. and T.A. Caulfield (2004) ‘Do the Print Media “Hype” Genetic Research? A Comparison of Newspaper Stories and Peer-reviewed Research Papers’, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170 (9), 1399-1408.
45. Bucchi, M. (1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Communication. London and New York: Routledge.
46. Burgess, A. (2004) Cellular Phones, Public Fears and a Culture of Precaution. New York: Cambridge University Press
47. Carvalho, A (2007) ‘Ideological Cultures and Media Discourses on Scientific Knowledge: Re-Reading News on Climate Change’, Public Understanding of Science, 16 (2), 223-243.
48. Carvalho, A. and J. Burgess (2005) ‘Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in UK Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985-2003’, Risk Analysis, 25 (6), 1457-1469.
49. Castel, R (1991) ‘From Dangerousness to Risk’, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
50. Chalmers, M (2007) ‘A Revolution in Bits’, Physics World, 20 (1), 18-21.
51. Clift, R (2006) ‘Risk Management and Regulation in an Emerging Technology’, in G. Hunt and M.D. Mehta (eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan.
52. Cobb, M (2005) ‘Framing Effects on Public Opinion about Nanotechnology’, Science Communication, 27 (2), 221-239.
53. Cobb, M.D. and J. Macoubrie (2004) ‘Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6 (4), 395-405.
54. Collins, H.M. and T. Pinch (1998) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Colvin, V.L (2003) ‘The Potential Environmental Impact of Engineered Nanoparticles’, Nature Biotechnology, 21 (10), 1166-1170.
56. Condit, C.M (2004) ‘Science Reporting to the Public’, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170 (9), 1415-1416.
57. Cook, G., Pieri, E., and P.T. Robbins (2004) ‘The Scientists Think and the Public Feels: Experts Perceptions of the Discourse of GM Food’, Discourse and Society, 15 (4), 433-449.
58. Cooper, G. and M. Ebeling (2007) ‘Epistemology, Structure and Urgency: The Sociology of Financial and Scientific Journalists’, Sociological Research Online, 12 (3), http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/8.html accessed 20 May 2008.
59. Cordis (2004) EU Policies for Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/eu_nano_policy_2004-07.pdf accessed 16 May 2008.
60. Corrigan, O. and A. Petersen (2008) ‘UK Biobank: Bioethics as a Technology of Governance’, in H. Gottweis and A. Petersen (eds) Biobanks: Governance in Comparative Perspective. London and New York: Routledge:
61. Cottle, S (1998) ‘Ulrich Beck, “Risk Society: and the Media: A Catastrophic View?’, European Journal of Communication, 13 (1), 5-32.
62. Cottle, S. (ed.) (2003) News, Public Relations and Power. London: Sage.
63. Couldry, N, Livingstone, S., and T. Markham (2007) Media Consumption and Public Engagement: Beyond the Presumption of Attention. Basingstoke: Palgrave. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/pdf/Public%20Connection%20Report.pdf.accessed 4 June 2008.
64. Court E., Daar, A.S., Martin E., Acharya T., and P.A. Singer (2004) ‘Will Prince Charles et al Diminish the Opportunities of Developing Countries in Nanotechnology?’ http://www.nanotechweb.org/articles/society/3/1/1/1 accessed 16 May 2008.
65. Cranor, C. (ed.) (1994) Are Genes Us? The Social Consequences of the New Genetics. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
66. Crichton, M. (2002) Prey. New York: HarperCollins.
67. CRN (2008) ‘What is Nanotechnology?’, Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm accessed 6th June 2008.
68. CST (2007) Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: A Review of the Government’s Progress on its Policy Commitments. London: Council for Science and Technology.
69. Currall, S.C., King, E.B., Lane, N., Madera, J., and S. Turner (2006) ‘What Drives Public Acceptance of Nanotechnology?’, Nature Nanotechnology, 1 (3), 153-155.
70. Davis, A (2000) ‘Public Relations, News Production and Changing Patterns of Source Access in the British National Media’, Media, Culture and Society, 22 (1), 39-59.
71. Dawkins, R. (1998) Unweaving the Rainbow. London: Penguin.
72. Dean, C (2002) ‘New Complications in Reporting on Science’, Nieman Reports, 56 (3), 25-26.
73. Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (2008) National Nanotechnology Strategy. January, Canberra: DIISR. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Documents/NNSFeb08.pdf accessed 25 March 2008.
74. DTI/OST (2002) New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology. London: Department of Trade and. Industry/Office of Science and Technology.
75. Drexler, E (2004) ‘Nanotechnology: From Feynman to Funding’, Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 24 (1), 21-27.
76. Drexler, E. (2008) ‘Nanotechnology Overview’ http://www.edrexler.com/p/04/03/0325nanoMeanings.html
77. Dunwoody, S (1999) ‘Scientists, Journalists and the Meaning of Uncertainty’, in S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C.L. Rogers (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
78. Ebeling, M (2008) ‘Mediating Uncertainty: Communicating the Financial Risks of Nanotechnologies’, Science Communication, 29 (3), 335-361.
79. Einsiedel, E. and L. Goldenberg (2004) ‘Dwarfing the Social? Nanotechnology Lessons from the Biotechnology Front’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24 (1), 28-33.
80. Eisend, M (2002) ‘The Internet as a New Medium for the Sciences?’, Online Information Review, 26 (5), 307-317.
81. Eldridge, J. and J. Reilly (2003) ‘Risk and Relativitiy: BSE and the British Media’, in N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82. ETC Group (2003) The Big Down: Atomtech: Technologies Converging at the Nanoscale, Winnipeg, Canada: ETC Group. http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/171/01/thebigdown.pdf accessed 16 May 2008.
83. Europa (2008) ‘European Commission adopts Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research’, Press Release. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/193&format =HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en accessed 25 March 2008.
84. European Commission (2006) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends. Brussels: Directorate General Press and Communication.
85. Evans, G. and J. Durant, (1995) ‘The Relationship between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain’, Public Understanding of Science, 4 (1), 57-74.
86. Evans, R. and A. Plows (2007) ‘Listening without Prejudice?: Re-discovering the Value of the Disinterested Citizen’, Social Studies of Science, 37 (6), 827-853.
87. Evans, W. and S.H. Priest (1995) ‘Science Content and Social Context’, Public Understanding of Science, 4 (4), 327-340.
88. Eveland, W.P. and S. Dunwoody (1998) ‘Users and Navigation Patterns of a Science World Wide Web Site for the Public’, Public Understanding of Science, 7 (4), 285-311.
89. Faber, B. (2005) Popularizing Nanoscience: The Public Rhetoric of Nanotechnology, 1986-1999. http://www.people.clarkson.edu/~faber/pubs/nano.tech.tcq.3.0.doc accessed 28 February 2008.
90. Faber, B (2006) ‘Popularizing Nanoscience: The Public Rhetoric of Nanotechnology, 1986-1999’, Technical Communication Quarterly, 15 (2), 141-169.
91. Flatow, I (1997) ‘Magazine Style’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
92. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and H. Kunreuther (eds) (2001) Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London: Earthscan.
93. Friedhoff, S (2002) ‘Rethinking the Science Beat’, Nieman Reports, 56 (3), 23-25.
94. Friedman, S.M (1986) ‘The Journalist’s World’, in S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C.L. Rogers (eds) Scientists and Journalists. New York: Free Press.
95. Friedman, S.M. and B.P. Egolf (2005) ‘Nanotechnology, Risks and the Media’, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 24 (4), 5-11.
96. Friedman, S.M., Dunwoody, S., and C.L. Rogers (eds) (1986) Scientists and Journalists. Washington: AAAS.
97. Friedman, S., Dunwoody, S., and C.L. Rogers (eds) (1999) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
98. Friends of the Earth Australia (2008a) Out of the Laboratory and on to Our Plates: Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture. Friends of the Earth Australia, Europe and USA. http://nano.foe.org.au/filestore2/download/228/Nanotechnology%20in%20food%20and%20agriculture%20-%20text%20only%20version.pdf accessed 22 April 2008.
99. Friends of the Earth Australia (2008b) Mounting Evidence that Carbon Nanotubes may be the New Asbestos. Friends of the Earth Australia. http://nano.foe.org.au/filestore2/download/265/Mounting%20evidence%20that%20carbon%20nanotubes%20may%20be%20the%20new%20asbestos%20%20August% 202008.pdf accessed 19 September 2008.
100. Gaskell, G (2004) ‘Science Policy and Society: The British Debate over GM Agriculture’, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 15 (3), 241-245.
101. Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J., 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.
102. Gavelin, K., Wilson, R., and R. Doubleday (2007) Democratic Technologies? The Final Report of the Nanotechnologies Engagement Group (NEG). London: Involve.
103. Gibson, I (2003) ‘Make Truth the Target’, Times Higher Education Supplement, 2 May.
104. Gieryn, T.F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
105. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
106. Goodell, R (1986) ‘How to Kill a Controversy: The Case of Recombinant DNA’, in S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. Rogers (eds) Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News. New York: Free Press.
107. Gorss, J. and B. Lewenstein (2005) ‘The Salience of Small: Nanotechnology Coverage in the American Press, 1986-2004’, Paper presented at International Communication Association Conference, 27 May.
108. Gottweis, H. and A. Petersen (2008) ‘Biobanks and Governance: An Introduction’, in H. Gottweis and A. Petersen (eds) Biobanks: Governance in Comparative Perspective. London and New York: Routledge.
109. Greenberg, J (1997) ‘Using Sources’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
110. Greenberg, M.R., Sachsman, D.B., Sandman, P.M., and K.L. Salome (1989) ‘Network Evening News Coverage of Environmental Risk’, Risk Analysis, 9 (1), 119-126.
111. Gregory, J. and S. Miller (1998) Science in Public. Cambridge: Perseus.
112. Gregory, J. and S. Miller (2001) ‘Caught in the Crossfire: The Public’s Role in the Science Wars’, in J.A. Labinger and H. Collins (eds) The One Culture? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
113. Gregory, R., Flynn, J., and P. Slovic (2001) ‘Technological Stigma’, in J. Flynn, P. Slovic and H. Kunreuther (eds) Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London: Earthscan.
114. Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., and D. Beyleveld (1999) ‘The Media and Public Understanding of Biotechnology: A Survey of Scientists and Journalists’, Science Communication, 20 (4), 373-394.
115. Gurabardhi, Z., Gutteling, J.M., and M. Kuttschreuter (2005) ‘An Empirical Analysis of Communication Flow, Strategy and Stakeholders’ Participation in the Risk Communication Literature 1988-2000’, Journal of Risk Research, 8 (6), 499-511.
116. Hall, S (1981) ‘The Determinations of News Photographs’, in S. Cohen and J. Young (eds) The Manufacture of News (Revised Edition). London: Constable.
117. Handy, R.D. and B.J. Shaw (2007) ‘Toxic Effects of Nanoparticles and Nanomaterials: Implications for Public Health, Risk Assessment and the Public Perception of Nanotechnology’, Health, Risk and Society, 9 (2), 125-144.
118. Hannah, W. and P.B. Thompson (2008) ‘Nanotechnology, Risk and the Environment: A Review’, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 10 (3), 291-300.
119. Hansen, A. (ed.) (1993) The Mass Media and Environmental Issues. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
120. Hansen, A (1994) ‘Journalistic Practices and Science Reporting in the British Press’, Public Understanding of Science, 3 (2), 111-134.
121. Hansen, A (2000) ‘Claims-making and Framing in British Newspaper Coverage of the “Brent Spar” Controversy’, in S. Allan, B. Adam, and C. Carter (eds) Environmental Risks and the Media. London: Routledge.
122. Hansen, A., Cottle, S., Negrine, R., and C. Newbold (1998) Mass Communication Research Methods. London: Macmillan.
123. Hansson, S.O (2004) ‘Great Uncertainty about Small Things’, Techne, 8 (2), 26-35.
124. Hargreaves, I. and G. Ferguson (2000) Who’s Misunderstanding Whom? Bridging the Gulf of Understanding between the Public, the Media and Science. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.
125. Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J., and T. Speers (2003) Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.
126. Harris, R.F (1997) ‘Toxics and Risk Reporting’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
127. Heckl, W. (2007) Nanodialogue: Recommendations to Achieve Sustainable Governance and Social Acceptance. EuroNanoForum 2007, Nanotechnology in Industrial Applications. 19-21 June 2007, Düsseldorf, Germany: CCD.
128. Hermida, A (2006) ‘Young Challenge Mainstream Media’, BBC News Online, 3 May 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4962794.stm accessed 4 June 2006.
129. Hermida, A. (2007) ‘Reimagining Science Journalism’, Future Directions in Science Journalism conference, University of British Columbia, 9-10 November.
130. Hett, A. (2004) Nanotechnology: Small Matter, Many Unknowns. Zurich: Swiss Re Insurance Company.
131. Hilgartner, S (1990) ‘The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses’, Social Studies of Science, 20 (3), 519-539.
132. Hilgartner, S. (2000) Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
133. Hilgartner, S. and C.L. Bosk (1988) ‘The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model’, American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1), 53-78.
134. HM Government (2005a) Response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Report: Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. February 2005. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
135. HM Government (2005b) The Government’s Outline Programme for Public Engagement on Nanotechnologies. London: HM Government in Consultation with the Devolved Administrations. http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/programme12.pdf accessed 16 May 2008.
136. HMSO (2000) Science and Society; Third Report of the Session 1999-2000. London: HM Stationery Office.
137. HMT, DfES, and DTI (2004) Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014. London: HM Stationery Office.
138. Hoet, P.H.M., Bruske-Hohlfield, I., and O.V. Salata (2004) ‘Nanoparticles -Known and Unknown Health Risks’, Journal of Nanobiotechnology, 2 (12). http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/2/1/12
139. Hornig, S (1993) ‘Reading Risk: Public Response to Print Media Accounts of Technological Risk’, Public Understanding of Science, 2 (2), 95-109.
140. Hornig Priest, S (2001) ‘Cloning: A Study in News Production’, Public Understanding of Science, 10 (1), 59-69.
141. Hornig Priest, S (2005) ‘Risk Reporting: Why can’t they ever get it Right?’, in S. Allan (ed.) Journalism: Critical Issues. Buckingham: Open University Press.
142. Hotz, R.L (2002) ‘The Difficulty of Finding Impartial Sources in Science’, Nieman Reports, 56 (3), 6-7.
143. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2004) Too Little, Too Late? Government Investment in Nanotechnology: Fifth Report of Session 2003-4. Volume One. London: The Stationery Office.
144. Human Genome Project Information (2008) Ethical, Legal and Social Issues. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/elsi.shtml accessed 28 February 2008.
145. Hunt, G (2006) ‘Nanotechnologies and Society in Europe’, in G. Hunt and M.D. Mehta (eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan.
146. Hunt, G. and M.D. Mehta (eds) (2006) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan.
147. Iredale, R. and M. Longley (2000) ‘Reflections on Citizens’ Juries: The Case of the Citizens’ Jury on Genetic Testing for Common Disorders’, Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 24 (1), 41-47.
148. Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
149. Irwin, A (2001) ‘Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in Biosciences’, Public Understanding of Science, 10 (1), 1-18.
150. Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
151. Jarmul, D (1997) ‘Op-ed Writing’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
152. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
153. Jensen, E (2008) ‘The Dao of Human Cloning: Utopian/Dystopian Hype in the British Press and Popular Films’, Public Understanding of Science, 17 (2), 123-143.
154. Joly, P.B. and A. Kaufmann, (2008) ‘Lost in Translation: The Need for “Upstream Engagement” with Nanotechnology on Trial’, Science as Culture, 17 (3), 225-247.
155. Jones, R (2008) ‘The Economy of Promises’, Nature Nanotechnology, 3, 65-66. http://www.nature.com/nnano/index.html
156. Kasperson, R., Jhaveri, N., and J.X. Kasperson (2001) ‘Stigma and the Social Amplification of Risk: Toward a Framework of Analysis’, in J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and H. Kunreuther (eds) Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London: Earthscan.
157. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X. and S.J. Ratick (1988) ‘The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework’, Risk Analysis, 8 (2), 178-187.
158. Kiernan, V. (2006) Embargoed Science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
159. Kitzinger, J (1999) ‘Researching Risk and the Media’, Health, Risk and Society, 1 (1), 55-69.
160. Kitzinger, J (2006) ‘The Role of the Media in Public Engagement with Science’, in J. Turney (ed.) Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action. London: Wellcome Trust.
161. Kitzinger, J. and J. Reilly (1997) ‘The Rise and Fall of Risk Reporting: Media Coverage of Human Genetics Research, “False Memory Syndrome” and “Mad Cow Disease” ’, European Journal of Communication, 12 (3), 319-350.
162. Kitzinger, J., Henderson, L., Smart, A., and J. Eldridge (2003) Media Coverage of the Social and Ethical Implications of Human Genetic Research. Final Report to the Wellcome Trust, February. Award no: GR058105MA.
163. Koolstra, C.M., Bos, M.J.W., and I.E. Vermuelen (2006) ‘Through which Medium should Science Information Professionals Communicate with the Public: Television or the Internet?’, Journal of Science Communication, 5 (3), 1-8.
164. Kulinowski, K (2004) ‘Nanotechnology: from “Wow” to “Yuck”?’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24 (1), 13-20.
165. Kulinowski, K. (2006) ‘Nanotechnology: From “Wow” to “Yuck”?’, in G. Hunt and M.D. Mehta (eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan.
166. LaMonica, M. (2008) ‘IBM, Saudis Partner on “Green” Nanotech Lab’, Green Tech Blog http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-988415654.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=GreenTechblog accessed 25 March 2008.
167. Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action. Harvard, MA: Cambridge University Press.
168. Lee, C. and D.A. Scheufele (2006) ‘The Influence of Knowledge and Deference toward Scientific Authority: A Media Effects Model for Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83 (4), 819-834.
169. Lehoux, P. (2006) The Problem of Health Technology: Policy Implications for Modern Health Care Systems. New York: Routledge
170. Lewenstein, B.V (1995) ‘Science and Media’, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
171. Lewenstein, B.V., Radin, J., and J. Diels (2004) ‘Nanotechnology in the Media: A Preliminary Analysis’, in W.S. Bainbridge (ed.) Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology II: Maximizing Human Benefit (Report of the National Nanotechnology InitiativeWorkshop, 3-5 December 2003, Arlington, VA), Washington DC: National Science & Technology Council and National Science Foundation.
172. Lichtenberg, J. and D. MacClean (1991) ‘The Role of the Media in Risk Communication’, in R. Kasperson and P. Stallen (eds) Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. London: Kluwer Academic.
173. Logan, R.A (1991) ‘Popularization versus Secularization: Media Coverage of Health’, in L. Wilkins and P. Patterson (eds) Risky Business: Communicating Issues of Science, Risk and Public Policy. New York: Greenwood.
174. Losch, A (2006) ‘Anticipating the Futures of Nanotechnology: Visionary Images as Means of Communication’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18 (3), 393-409.
175. Lupton, D (2004) ‘A Grim Health Future: Food Risks in the Sydney Press’, Health, Risk and Society, 6 (2), 187-200.
176. Lynch, J. and C.M. Condit (2006) ‘Genes and Race in the News’, American Journal of Health Behaviour, 30 (2), 125-135.
177. Maason, S and P. Weingart (2000) Metaphors and the Dynamics of Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
178. McCallum, D.B., David, B., Hammond, S.L., and V.T. Covello (1991) ‘Communicating about Environmental Risks: How the Public uses and Perceives Information Sources’, Health Education Quarterly, 18 (3), 349-361.
179. Macnaghten, P. and J. Urry (1998) Contested Natures. London: Sage.
180. Macoubrie, J. (2005) Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government. Project on Emerging Technologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event_summary &event_i=143410 accessed 2 August 2007.
181. Malone, R.E., Boyd, E., and L.A. Bero (2000) ‘Science in the News: Journalists’ Constructions of Passive Smoking as a Social Problem’, Social Studies of Science, 30 (5), 713-735.
182. Manning, P. (2001) News and News Sources: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.
183. Market Attitude Research Services (2007) Final Report: Australian Community Attitudes Held about Nanotechnology - Trends 2005 to 2007. Sydney: Market Attitude Research Services Pty Ltd.
184. Marks, L.A., Kalaitzandonakes, N., Wilkins, L., and L. Zakharova (2007) ‘Mass Media Framing of Biotechnology News’, Public Understanding of Science, 16 (2), 183-203.
185. Masami, M., Hunt, G., and O. Masayuki (2006) ‘Nanotechnologies and Society in Japan’, in G. Hunt, G. and M.D. Mehta (eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan.
186. Massoli, L (2007) ‘Science on the Net: An Analysis of the Websites of the European Public Research Institutions’, Journal of Science Communication, 6 (3), 1-16.
187. Mayer, S (2002) ‘From Genetic Modification to Nanotechnology: The Dangers of “Sound Science” ’, in T. Gilland (ed.) Science: Can We Trust the Experts? London: Hodder and Stoughton.
188. Mehta, M.D (2004) ‘From Biotechnology to Nanotechnology: What can we Learn from Earlier Technologies?’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24 (1), 34-39.
189. Mehta, M.D. (2005) Risky Business: Nuclear Power and Public Protest in Canada. Lexington, MD: Lanham.
190. Meili, C. (2005) ‘The “Ten Commandments” of Nano Communication -Or how to Deal with Public Perception.’ Innovation Society. http://www.innovationsgesellschaft.ch/images/publikationen/Ten%20Command ments%20of%20Nano-Communication.pdf accessed 16 May 2008.
191. Michael, M. (2002). ‘Comprehension, Apprehension, and Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 27(3), 357-370.
192. Michelson, E.S. and D. Rejeski (2006) Falling Through the Cracks? Public Perception, Risk, and the Oversight of Emerging Nanotechnologies. IEEE, Technology and Society International Symposium.
193. Miksanek, T (2001) ‘Microscopic Doctors and Molecular Black Bag: Science Fiction’s Prescription for Nanotechnology and Medicine’, Literature and Medicine, 21 (1), 55-70.
194. Miller, D. and J. Reilly (1994) Food Scares in the Media. Glasgow University Media Group. http://homepages.strath.ac.uk/~ his04105/publications/Foodscares.html accessed 16 May 2008.
195. Miller, D. and B. Dinan (2000) ‘The Rise of the PR Industry in Britain: 1979-98’, European Journal of Communication, 15 (1), 5-35.
196. Miller, M. and B.P. Riechert (2000) ‘Interest Group Strategies and Journalistic Norms: News Media Framing of Environmental Issues’, in S. Allan, B. Adam, and C. Carter (eds) Environmental Risks and the Media. London: Routledge.
197. Miller, S (2001) ‘Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads’, Public Understanding of Science, 10 (1), 115-120.
198. MORI (2000) The Role of Scientists in Public Debate. London: Wellcome Trust.
199. Murdock, G (2004) ‘Popular Representations and Postnormal Science: The Struggle over Genetically Modified Foods’, in S. Braman (ed.) Biotechnology and Communication: The Meta-Technologies of Information. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
200. Murdock, G., Petts J., and T. Horlick-Jones (2003) ‘After Amplification: Rethinking the Role of the Media in Risk Communication’, in N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic (eds) The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
201. Mythen, G. (2004) Ulrich Beck: A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society. London: Pluto Press.
202. Mythen, G (2007) ‘Reappraising the Risk Society Thesis: Telescopic Sight or Myopic Vision?’, Current Sociology, 55 (6), 793-813.
203. Nano2Life (2008) Nano2Life website http://www.nano2life.de/content.php?id=2 accessed 25 March 2008.
204. Nanoforum Report (2004) The 4th Nanoforum Report: Benefits, Risks, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Nanotechnology, Nanoforum.org: European Nanotechnology Gateway, June. http://www.nanoforum.org/accessed 16 May 2008.
205. Nanoforum (2008) http://www.nanoforum.org/accessed 7 June 2008.
206. Nanologue (2006) Nanologue: Opinions of Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Nanotechnologies. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute, Forum for the Future and Triple Innova, 1-117.
207. Nelkin, D. (1987) Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W. H Freeman and Company.
208. Nelkin, D. (1995) Selling Science: How the Press covers Science and Technology. New York: WH Freeman.
209. Newspaper Marketing Agency (2005) ‘Newspaper Crib Sheet’. http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures accessed 20 May 2008.
210. Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., and A. Kroepsch (2003) ‘Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in the Age of Press/Politics’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8 (2), 36-70.
211. Nisbet, M.C. and B.V. Lewenstein (2002) ‘Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999’, Science Communication, 23 (4), 359-359.
212. Nisbet, M.C. and C. Mooney (2007) ‘Framing Science’, Science, 316 (5821), 6 April, 56.
213. Nisbet, M.C. and M. Huge (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.
214. Nisbet, M.C. and M. Huge (2007) ‘Where do Science Debates come from? Understanding Attention Cycles and Framing?’, in D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, and T.C. Nesbitt (eds)The Public, the Media and Agricultural Biotechnology. London: CABI.
215. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and M. Gibbons (2001) Re-Thinking Science, Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
216. NSF (2006) Science and Engineering Indicators 2006: Volume One. Arlington: National Science Foundation.
217. NSF (2008) National Science Foundation http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/reports/omb_nifty50.jsp accessed 6 June 2008.
218. OST and The Wellcome Trust (2000) Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain. London: Department of Trade and Industry and the Wellcome Trust.
219. Oud, M. and I. Malsch (2003) Socio-Economic Report on Nanotechnology and Smart Materials for Medical Devices, Nanoforum. http://www.nanoforum.org/accessed 14 May 2008.
220. Park, B (2007) ‘Current and Future Applications of Nanotechnology’, in R.E. Hester and R.M. Harrison (eds) Nanotechnology: Consequences for Human Health and the Environment. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.
221. Paul, D (2004) ‘Spreading Chaos: The Role of Popularizations in the Diffusion of Scientific Ideas’, Written Communication, 21 (1), 32-68.
222. Pearson, G., Pringle, S.M., and J.N. Thomas (1997) ‘Scientists and the Public Understanding of Science’, Public Understanding of Science, 6 (3), 279-289.
223. Pellechia, M.G (1997) ‘Trends in Science Coverage: A Content Analysis of Three US Newspapers’, Public Understanding of Science, 6 (1), 49-68.
224. Pense, C.M. and S.H. Cutcliffe (2007) ‘Risky Talk: Framing the Analysis of the Social Implications of Nanotechnology’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 27 (5), 349-366.
225. Perlman, D (1997) ‘Introduction’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
226. Peters, H.P (1999) ‘The Interaction of Journalists and Scientific Experts: Cooperation and Conflict between Two Professional Cultures’, in E. Scanlon, E. Whitelegg, and S. Yates (eds) Communicating Science Contexts and Channels. London: Routledge.
227. Petersen, A (2001) ‘Biofantasies: Genetics and Medicine in the Print News Media’, Social Science and Medicine, 52 (8), 1255-1268.
228. Petersen, A (2002) ‘Replicating our Bodies, Losing Ourselves: News Media Portrayals of Human Cloning in the Wake of Dolly’, The Body & Society, 8 (4), 71-90.
229. Petersen, A (2005) ‘The Metaphors of Risk: Biotechnology in the News’, Health, Risk and Society, 7 (3), 203-208.
230. Petersen, A., Allan, S., Anderson, A., and C. Wilkinson (2009) ‘Opening the Black Box: Scientists’ Views on the Role of the Mass Media in the Nanotechnology Debate’, Public Understanding of Science.
231. Petersen, A., Anderson, A., and S. Allan (2005) ‘Science Fiction/Science Fact: Medical Genetics in Fictional and News Stories’, New Genetics and Society, 24 (3), 337-353.
232. Petersen, A. and A. Anderson (2008) ‘A Question of Balance or Blind Faith?: Scientists’ and Science Policymakers’ Representations of the Benefits and Risks of Nanotechnologies’, NanoEthics, 1 (3), 243-256.
233. Petersen, A., Anderson, A., Wilkinson, C., and S. Allan (2007) ‘Editorial: Nanotechnologies, Risk and Society’, Health, Risk and Society, 9 (2), 117-124.
234. Petit, C (1997) ‘Covering Earth Sciences’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
235. Petts, J., Horlick-Jones, T., and G. Murdock (2001) Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and the Public, Contract Research Report. London: Health and Safety Executive.
236. Petts J. and S. Niemeyer (2004) ‘Health Risk Communication and Amplification: Learning from the MMR Vaccination Controversy’, Health, Risk and Society, 6 (1), 7-23.
237. Pew Internet Project/Exploratorium (2006) The Internet as a Resource for News and Information about Science, http://www.pewinternet.org/accessed 16 May 2008.
238. Philo, G. (ed.) (1999) Message Received. Harlow: Longman.
239. Phoenix, N. and E. Drexler (2004) ‘Safe Exponential Manufacturing’, Nanotechnology, 15 (8), 869-872.
240. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R.E., and P. Slovic (eds) (2003) The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
241. Pinholster, G. and C.O’Malley (2006) ‘EurekAlert! Survey Confirms Challenges for Science Communicators in the Post-Print Era’, Journal of Science Communication, 5 (3), 1-12.
242. POST (2001) Open Channels: Public Dialogue in Science and Technology. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
243. Powell, M.C (2007) ‘New Risk or Old Risk, High Risk or No Risk?: How Scientists’ Standpoints Shape their Nanotechnology Risk Frames’, Health, Risk and Society, 9 (2), 173-190.
244. Priest, S (2006) ‘The North American Opinion Climate for Nanotechnology and its Products: Opportunities and Challenges’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8 (4), 563-568.
245. Randles, S., Dewick, P., Loveridge, D., and J.C. Schmidt (2008) ‘Nano-worlds as Schumpeterian Emergence and Polanyian Double-Movements’, Analysis & Strategic Management, 20 (1), 1-11.
246. RCUK/DIUS (2008) Public Attitudes to Science 2008: A Survey. London: People, Science and Policy Limited. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/cmsweb/downloads/rcuk/scisoc/pas08.pdf/accessed 16 May 2008.
247. Reed, R (2001) '(Un) Professional Discourse? Journalists and Scientists’ Stories about Science in the Media’, Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, 2 (3), 279-298.
248. Reed, R. and G.F. Walker (2002) ‘Listening to Scientists and Journalists’, Nieman Reports, 56 (3), 45-46.
249. Renn, O., Burns, W.J., Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., and P. Slovic (1992) ‘The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications’, Risk Analysis, 48 (4), 137-160.
250. Renn, O. and M.C. Roco (2006) ‘Nanotechnology and the Need for Risk Governance’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8 (2), 153-191.
251. Rensberger, B (1997) ‘Covering Science for Newspapers’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
252. Richardson, K (2001) ‘Risk News in theWorld of Internet Newsgroups’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5 (1), 50-72.
253. Roco, M. and W.S. Bainbridge (2001) Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. National Science Foundation. http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/accessed 16 May 2008.
254. Rogers-Hayden, T. and N. Pidgeon (2007) ‘Moving Engagement “Upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s Inquiry’, Public Understanding of Science, 16 (3), 345-364.
255. Ropeik, D (1997) ‘Reporting News’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
256. Rose, H (2000) ‘Risk, Trust and Scepticism in the Age of New Genetics’, in B. Adam, U. Beck, and J. Van Loon (eds) The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: Sage.
257. Rowe, G. and L.J. Frewer (2000) ‘Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 25 (1), 3-29.
258. Rowell, A. (2003) Don’t Worry it’s Safe to Eat: The True Story of GM Food, BSE and Foot and Mouth. London: Earthscan.
259. Royal Society (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.
260. Royal Society (2006) Science Communication: Survey of Factors Affecting Science Communication by Scientists and Engineers. London: Royal Society.
261. Royal Society (2007) ‘Communication Skills and Media Training Courses’, at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1151 Accessed 5 September 2007.
262. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (RS/RAE) (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties Report. London: The Royal Society. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm accessed 16 May 2008.
263. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2007) Joint Academies Initial Response to the Council for Science and Technology’s Review of Government’s Progress on Nanotechnologies. London: Royal Society.
264. Ryan, C. (1991) Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organising. Boston, MA: South End Press.
265. Salisbury, D.F (1997) ‘Colleges and Universities’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
266. Sandler, R (2007) ‘Nanotechnology and Social Context’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 27 (6), 446-454.
267. Sandler, R. and W.D. Kay (2006) ‘The GMO-Nanotech (Dis)Analogy?’, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26 (1), 57-62.
268. Schanne, M. and W. Meier (1992) ‘Media Coverage of Risk’, in J. Durant (ed.) Museums and the Public Understanding of Science. London: Science Museum Publications.
269. 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), 659-677.
270. Scheufele, D.A., Corley, E.A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T., Hillback, E., and D. Guston (2007) ‘Scientists Worry about some Risks more than the Public’, Nature Nanotechnology, 2 (12), 732-734.
271. Schummer, J (2004) ‘Societal and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology: Meanings, Interest Groups and Social Dynamics’, Techne, 8 (2), 56-87.
272. Schummer, J (2005) ‘Reading Nano: The Public Interest in Nanotechnology as Reflected in Purchase Patterns of Books’, Public Understanding of Science, 14 (2), 163-183.
273. Science Media Centre (2002) Consultation Report. London: Science Media Centre.
274. Selin, C (2007) ‘Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 32 (2), 196-220.
275. Singer, E. and P. Endreny (1987) ‘Reporting Hazards: Their Benefits and their Costs’, Journal of Communication, 37 (3), 10-26.
276. Smalley, R.E. (2008) Richard Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology ‘What is Nanotechnology’ http://cnst.rice.edu/nano.cfm accessed 6th June 2008.
277. Snow, C.P. (1965) The Two Cultures: A Second Look. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
278. Stallings, R.A (1990) ‘Media Discourse and the Social Construction of Risk’, Social Problems, 37 (1), 80-95.
279. Stephens, L.F. (2004) ‘News Narratives about Nano: How Journalists and the News Media are Framing Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Initiatives and Issues’. Paper presented to Imaging and Imagining Nanoscience and Engineering Conference, University of South Carolina, 3-7 March.
280. Stephens, L.F (2005) ‘News Narratives about Nano S & T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S. Newspapers’, Science Communication, 27 (2), 175-199.
281. Stocking, S.H (1999) ‘How Journalists Deal with Scientific Uncertainty’, in S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C.L. Rogers (eds) Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
282. Te Kulve, H.T (2006) ‘Evolving Repertoires: Nanotechnology in Daily Newspapers in the Netherlands’, Science as Culture, 15 (4), 367-382.
283. Theodore, L. and R.G. Kunz (2005) Nanotechnology: Environmental Implications and Solutions. New Jersey: John Wiley.
284. Thirlaway, K. and D. Heggs (2005) ‘Interpreting Risk Messages: Women’s Responses to a Health Story’, Health, Risk and Society, 7 (2), 107-121.
285. Throne-Holst, H. and E.A. Stø (2008) ‘Who should be Precautionary? Governance of Nanotechnology in the Risk Society’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20 (1), 99-112.
286. Thurs, D.P (2007) ‘Tiny Tech, Transcendent Tech: Nanotechnology, Science Fiction, and the Limits of Modern Science Talk’, Science Communication, 29 (1), 65-95.
287. Toner, M (1997) ‘Introduction’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
288. Tourney, C (2004) ‘Narratives for Nanotech: Anticipating Public Reactions to Nanotechnology’, Techne, 8 (2), 88-116.
289. Toumey, C.P (1996) ‘Conjuring Science in the Case of Cold Fusion’, Public Understanding of Science, 5 (2), 121-133.
290. Trafford, A (1997) ‘Critical Coverage of Public Health and Government’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.
291. Treise, D., Walsh-Childers, K., Weigold, M.F., and M. Friedman (2003) ‘Cultivating the Science Internet Audience’, Science Communication, 24 (3), 309-332.
292. Trumbo, C.W., Sprecker, K.J., Dumlao, R.J., Yun, G.W., and S. Duke (2001) ‘Use of E-mail and the Web by Science Writers’, Science Communication, 22 (4), 347-378.
293. Tuchman, G. (1978) Making News. New York: Free Press.
294. Tudelft (2008) Delft University of Technology website http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=083bdbc5-e2a6-403a-a57f-afef767d3f07&lang=en accessed 25 March 2008.
295. Turner, L (2003) ‘The Tyranny of “Genetics” ’, Nature Biotechnology, 21 (11), 1282.
296. Turney, J (2002) ‘Understanding and Engagement, the Changing face of Science and Society’, Wellcome News, Q3 (32), 6-7.
297. van Amerom, M. and M. Ruivenkamp (2006) ‘Image Dynamics in Nanotechnology’s Risk Debate’, Paper presented at Second International Seville Seminar on ‘Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impact of FTA Approaches on Policy and Decision-Making’, Seville 28th-29th September.
298. van Merkerk, R.O. and D.K.R. Robinson (2006) ‘Characterizing the Emergence of a Technological Field: Expectations, Agendas and Networks in Lab-ona-Chip Technologies’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18 (3/4), 411-428.
299. Wahlberg, A. and L. Sjoberg (2000) ‘Risk Perception and the Media’, Journal of Risk Research, 3 (1), 31-50.
300. Waldron, A.M., Spencer, D., and C.A. Batt (2006) ‘The Current State of Public Understanding of Nanotechnology’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8 (5), 569-575.
301. Walsh, B. (2007) Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies: Barriers and Opportunities. London: DEFRA.
302. Weigold, M.F. and D. Treise (2004) ‘Attracting Teen Surfers to Science Web Sites’, Public Understanding of Science, 13 (3), 229-248.
303. Whitehouse, D (2007) ‘Science Reporting’s Dark Secret’, The Independent, 23 July.
304. Wilcox, S.A (2003) ‘Cultural Context and the Conventions of Science Journalism: Drama and Contradiction in Media Coverage of Biological Ideas about Sexuality’, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20 (3), 225-247.
305. Wilkinson, C., Allan, S., Anderson, A., and A. Petersen (2007) ‘From Uncertainty to Risk?: Scientific and News Media Portrayals of Nanoparticle Safety’, Health, Risk and Society, 9 (2), 145-157.
306. Williams, C., Kitzinger, J., and L. Henderson (2003) ‘Envisaging the Embryo in Stem Cell Research: Rhetorical Strategies and Media Reporting of the Ethical Debate’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 25 (7), 793-814.
307. Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., and J. Stilgoe (2005) The Public Value of Science or How to Ensure Science Really Matters. London: Demos.
308. Wood, S., Geldart, A., and R. Jones (2008) ‘Crystallizing the Nanotechnology Debate’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 20 (1), 13-27.
309. Wood, S., Jones, R., and A. Geldart (2003) The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology. London: Economic and Social Research Council.
310. Wood, S., Jones, R., and A. Geldart (2007) Nanotechnology, from the Science to the Social: The Social, Ethical and Economic Aspects of the Debate. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC_Nano07_tcm6-18918.pdf accessed 16 May 2008.
311. Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Technology (2007) ‘A Nanotechnology Consumer Project Inventory’. Woodrow Wilson: Washington, D.C. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/accessed 16 May 2008.
312. Wynne, B (1995) ‘Public Understanding of Science’, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
313. Wynne, B (2006) ‘Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science - Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music’, Community Genetics, 9 (3), 211-220.
314. Young, P (1997) ‘Writing Articles from Science Journals’, in D. Blum and M. Knudson (eds) A Field Guide for Science Writers. New York: Oxford University Press.