Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Science Communication
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stephens, L. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

News Narratives about Nano S&T in Major U.S. and Non-U.S. Newspapers

Lowndes F. Stephens

University of South Carolina

The author of this content analytic study examines news narratives about nano science and technology (nano S&T) in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers by taking a random sample of 350 articles published from1988 through mid-July 2004 froma universe of 1,330 articles. In addition to identifying dominant frames or content themes, the author evaluates whether there is a dominant tone or sentiment regarding the ethical, legal, and societal implications of developments and issues in nano S&T. Scientific discoveries or projects and the social effects of nano S&T are the dominant frames. The ratio of articles leaning toward the sentiment that benefits outweigh risks versus that risks outweigh benefits is three to one.

Key Words: nanoscience • nanotechnology • public understanding of science • science communication • framing

Science Communication, Vol. 27, No. 2, 175-199 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547005281520
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
A. Petersen, A. Anderson, S. Allan, and C. Wilkinson
Opening the black box: scientists' views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate
Public Understanding of Science, September 1, 2009; 18(5): 512 - 530.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
R. Valerie Burri
Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland
Public Understanding of Science, September 1, 2009; 18(5): 498 - 511.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
J. Landau, C. R. Groscurth, L. Wright, and C. M. Condit
Visualizing nanotechnology: the impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology
Public Understanding of Science, May 1, 2009; 18(3): 325 - 337.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Science CommunicationHome page
A. Anderson, S. Allan, A. Petersen, and C. Wilkinson
The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press
Science Communication, December 1, 2005; 27(2): 200 - 220.
[Abstract] [PDF]