IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i11p1701-1717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Longitudinal Study of Newspaper and Wire Service Coverage of Nanotechnology Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Sharon M. Friedman
  • Brenda P. Egolf

Abstract

This study reviewed coverage of nanotechnology risks in 20 U.S. and 9 U.K. newspapers and 2 wire services from 2000 to 2009. It focused on information that citizens could come across in daily newspaper reading that could highlight the salience of these issues and alert readers to potential risks. Few articles about nanotechnology health, environmental, and societal risks were found in these publications during this period, averaging only 36.7 per year for both countries. The coverage emphasized three main narratives over time: runaway technology, science‐based studies, and regulation. Health risks were covered most frequently, followed by environmental and societal risk issues. Regulation coverage was not as frequent but increased over time. The majority of the coverage focused on news events and 10 events drew modest media attention. Scientific uncertainty discussions appeared in about half of the articles, and scientists and engineers were the dominant information sources in both countries. Some significant differences between U.S. and U.K. coverage were found: U.K. coverage emphasized more societal concerns, while U.S. coverage paid more attention to environmental risks. Because the volume of coverage was not extensive and was counterbalanced by many more articles extolling nanotechnology's benefits, it is questionable whether this coverage alerted readers about potential nanotechnology risks. Coupled with citizens’ minimal knowledge about nanotechnology, this type of coverage could create public distrust of nanotechnology applications should a dangerous risk event occur.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharon M. Friedman & Brenda P. Egolf, 2011. "A Longitudinal Study of Newspaper and Wire Service Coverage of Nanotechnology Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1701-1717, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:11:p:1701-1717
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01690.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01690.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01690.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kara Morgan, 2005. "Development of a Preliminary Framework for Informing the Risk Analysis and Risk Management of Nanoparticles," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1621-1635, December.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    2. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    3. Christopher L. Cummings & Sonny Rosenthal, 2018. "Climate change and technology: examining opinion formation of geoengineering," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 208-215, June.
    4. Reece A. Clothier & Dominique A. Greer & Duncan G. Greer & Amisha M. Mehta, 2015. "Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of Drones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1167-1183, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wiek, Arnim & Zemp, Stefan & Siegrist, Michael & Walter, Alexander I., 2007. "Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 388-406.
    2. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    3. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    4. Pardo-Guerra, Juan Pablo, 2011. "Mapping emergence across the Atlantic: Some (tentative) lessons on nanotechnology in Latin America," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 94-108.
    5. Joseph Conti & Terre Satterfield & Barbara Herr Harthorn, 2011. "Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1734-1748, November.
    6. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    8. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    9. Richard A. Canady, 2010. "The Uncertainty of Nanotoxicology: Report of a Society for Risk Analysis Workshop," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1663-1670, November.
    10. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2010. "Nanotechnology Risk Communication Past and Prologue," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1645-1662, November.
    11. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    12. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    13. Stephanie Moser & Susanne Elisabeth Bruppacher & Hans‐Joachim Mosler, 2011. "How People Perceive and Will Cope with Risks from the Diffusion of Ubiquitous Information and Communication Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 832-846, May.
    14. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    15. Jennifer Kuzma & James Romanchek & Adam Kokotovich, 2008. "Upstream Oversight Assessment for Agrifood Nanotechnology: A Case Studies Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1081-1098, August.
    16. Amanda D Boyd & Jiawei Liu & Jay D Hmielowski, 2019. "Public support for energy portfolios in Canada: How information about cost and national energy portfolios affect perceptions of energy systems," Energy & Environment, , vol. 30(2), pages 322-340, March.
    17. Du, Manqing & Zhang, Tingru & Liu, Jinting & Xu, Zhigang & Liu, Peng, 2022. "Rumors in the air? Exploring public misconceptions about automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 237-252.
    18. Susanna Priest & Thomas Lane & Ted Greenhalgh & Lindsey Jo Hand & Victoria Kramer, 2011. "Envisioning Emerging Nanotechnologies: A Three‐Year Panel Study of South Carolina Citizens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1718-1733, November.
    19. Niall Joseph O’Brien & Enda J. Cummins, 2011. "A Risk Assessment Framework for Assessing Metallic Nanomaterials of Environmental Concern: Aquatic Exposure and Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 706-726, May.
    20. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:11:p:1701-1717. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.