What is the problem? A literature review on challenges facing the communication of nanotechnology to the public
Source abstract
Abstract
Ethical and societal issues concerning justice, safety, risks, and benefits are well-established topics in the discourses of nanotechnology innovation and development. That nanotechnology innovation should be socially and ethically responsible is generally accepted by scientists, policymakers, regulators, and industry, and the idea of public involvement and communication is part and parcel of the conceptualization of responsible technology development. This paper systematically reviews the social science research literature accumulated between 2002 and 2018 on the communication of nanotechnology. A critical and constructivist perspective on policy problems guides the analysis. Two questions are asked of this literature: what problems are identified regarding the communication of nanotechnology to the public? How can these problems be managed and/or resolved? Three different problem themes are identified: the public, societal institutions, and nanotechnology itself. While for some identified problems, there are corresponding solutions; in other instances, there is little alignment between problems and solutions. In conclusion, the paper recommends that in communicating nanotechnology to the public: (i) the objectives of communication should be defined; (ii) previous research should be used responsibly; (iii) communication strategies should be adapted to the context; and (iv) effort should not be spent trying to develop a generic framework for communication.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (97)
Show source-provided references
1. Allan S, Anderson A, Petersen A (2010) Framing risk: nanotechnologies in the news. J Risk Res 13(1):29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987090313584710.1080/13669870903135847 ↗
2. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27(2):200–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700528147210.1177/1075547005281472 ↗
3. Anderson A, Petersen A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2009) Nanotechnology, risk and communication. Palgrave Macmillan, London10.1057/9780230234574 ↗
4. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Ladwig P (2014) The “nasty effect:” online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19(3):373–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.1200910.1111/jcc4.12009 ↗
5. Bacchi CL (1999) Women, policy and politics: the construction of policy problems. Sage, London10.4135/9781446217887 ↗
6. Bacchi CL (2012) Why study problematizations? Making politics visible. Open Journal of Political Science 2(01):1–8. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2012.2100110.4236/ojps.2012.21001 ↗
7. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–570. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022805510.1023/A:10228055 ↗
8. Berube DM, Cummings CL, Frith JH, Binder AR, Oldendick R (2011) Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks. J Nanopart Res 13(8):3089–3099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0325-z10.1007/s11051-011-0325-z ↗
9. Binder AR, Hillback ED, Brossard D (2016) Conflict or caveats? Effects of media portrayals of scientific uncertainty on audience perceptions of new technologies. Risk Anal 36(4):831–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.1246210.1111/risa.12462 ↗
10. Boholm M (2016) The use and meaning of nano in American English: towards a systematic description. Ampersand 3:163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2016.10.00110.1016/j.amper.2016.10.001 ↗
11. Boholm M, Arvidsson R (2016) A definition framework for the terms nanomaterial and nanoparticle. NanoEthics 10(1):25–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0249-710.1007/s11569-015-0249-7 ↗
12. Boholm M, Boholm Å (2012) The many faces of nano in newspaper reporting. J Nanopart Res 14(2):722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0722-y10.1007/s11051-012-0722-y ↗
13. Bostrom Å, Löfstedt RE (2010) Nanotechnology risk communication past and prologue. Risk Anal 30(11):1645–1662. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01521.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01521.x ↗
14. Breggin LK Carothers L (2006) Governing uncertainty: the nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety challenge. Columbia journal of environmental law 31, 285-329. DOI missing
15. Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Policy Res 30(5):512–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.1203510.1111/ropr.12035 ↗
16. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(3):385–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250934781510.1177/0963662509347815 ↗
17. Capon A, Gillespie J, Rolfe M, Smith W (2015) Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes. BMC Public Health 15(1):424. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1795-110.1186/s12889-015-1795-1 ↗
18. Castellini OM, Walejko GK, Holladay CE, Theim TJ, Zenner GM, Crone WC (2007) Nanotechnology and the public: effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. J Nanopart Res 9(2):183–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9160-z10.1007/s11051-006-9160-z ↗
19. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-004-3394-410.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
20. Coenen C (2016) Broadening discourse on responsible research and innovation (RRI). Nanoethics 10:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0255-410.1007/s11569-016-0255-4 ↗
21. Conti J, Satterfield T, Harthorn BH (2011) Vulnerability and social justice as factors in emergent US nanotechnology risk perceptions. Risk Anal 31(11):1734–1748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01608.x ↗
22. Cormick C (2009) Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology? Nanoethics 3(2):167–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0065-z10.1007/s11569-009-0065-z ↗
23. Cormick C, Hunter S (2014) Valuing values: better public engagement on nanotechnology demands a better understanding of the diversity of publics. NanoEthics 8(1):57–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0188-810.1007/s11569-014-0188-8 ↗
24. David K, Thompson PB (eds) (2011) What can nanotechnology learn from biotechnology? Social and ethical lessons for nanoscience from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs. Academic, Cambridge
25. Delgado A, Lein-Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2011) Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(6):826–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366251036305410.1177/0963662510363054 ↗
26. Duncan TV (2011) The communication challenges presented by nanofoods. Nat Nanotechnol 6(11):683–688. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.19310.1038/nnano.2011.193 ↗
27. Ebbesen M (2008) The role of the humanities and social sciences in nanotechnology research and development. NanoEthics 2(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0033-z10.1007/s11569-008-0033-z ↗
28. EC (2013) Regulation (EU) No. 1363/2013 of 12 December 2013...on the provision of food information to consumers as regards the defintion of “engineered nanomateials”. Officla Journal of th European Union
29. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA (2000) Gender, race, and perceived risk: the “white male” effect. Health Risk Soc 2(2):159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/71367016210.1080/713670162 ↗
30. Fitzgerald ST, Rubin BA (2010) Risk society, media, and power: the case of nanotechnology. Sociol Spectr 30(4):367–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/0273217100364101610.1080/02732171003641016 ↗
31. Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24(4):5–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTAS.2005.156349610.1109/MTAS.2005.1563496 ↗
32. Friedman SM, Egolf BP (2011) A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Anal 31(11):1701–1717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01690.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01690.x ↗
33. Gardner G, Jones G, Taylor A, Forrester J, Robertson L (2010) Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: implications for science education. Int J Sci Educ 32(14):1951–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069090333103510.1080/09500690903331035 ↗
34. Grieger KD, Hansen SF, Baun A (2009) The known unknowns of nanomaterials: describing and characterizing uncertainty within environmental, health and safety risks. Nanotoxicology 3(3):222–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743539090294406910.1080/17435390902944069 ↗
35. Gupta N, Fischer AR, van der Lans IA, Frewer LJ (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14(5):857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x10.1007/s11051-012-0857-x ↗
36. Gupta N, Fischer AR, Frewer LJ (2015) Ethics, risk and benefits associated with different applications of nanotechnology: a comparison of expert and consumer perceptions of drivers of societal acceptance. Nanoethics 9(2):93–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0222-510.1007/s11569-015-0222-5 ↗
37. Ho SS, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2010) Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12(8):2703–2715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0038-810.1007/s11051-010-0038-8 ↗
38. Kahan DM (2009) Nanotechnology and society: the evolution of risk perceptions. Nat Nanotechnol 4(11):705–706. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2009.32910.1038/nnano.2009.329 ↗
39. Kahan DM (2010) Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463(7279):296–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/463296a10.1038/463296a ↗
40. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):87–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.34110.1038/nnano.2008.341 ↗
41. Kim J, Yeo SK, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA (2014) Disentangling the influence of value predispositions and risk/benefit perceptions on support for nanotechnology among the American public. Risk Anal 34(5):965–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.1214110.1111/risa.12141 ↗
42. Kjølberg KL (2009) Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers—implications for public participation. Nanoethics 3(1):61–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0053-810.1007/s11569-008-0053-8 ↗
43. Laing A (2005) A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. Cormex research. http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/files/ . A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2019
44. Lancaster K, Ritter A (2014) Examining the construction and representation of drugs as a policy problem in Australia’s National Drug Strategy documents 1985–2010. Int J Drug Policy 25(1):81–87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395913001175 . Accessed 20 Feb 201810.1016/j.drugpo.2013.07.002 ↗
45. Larsson S, Boholm Å (2018) Den svenska allmänhetens inställning till nanoteknik [Swedish public opinion on nanotechnology]. In: Andersson U, Carlander A, Lindgren E, Oskarson M (eds) Sprickor i fasaden [cracks in the fasade]. Göteborgs universitet: SOM-institutet, Gothenburg, pp 293–303
46. Laux P, Tentschert J, Riebeling C, Braeuning A, Creutzenberg O, Epp A, Jakubowski N (2018) Nanomaterials: certain aspects of application, risk assessment and risk communication. Arch Toxicol 92:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-017-2144-110.1007/s00204-017-2144-1 ↗
47. Lewenstein BV, Gorss J, Radin J (2005) The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at International Communication Association, New York. https://hdl.handle.net/1813/14275 . Accessed 20 Feb 2018
48. Lin SF, Lin HS, Wu YY (2013) Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Sci Educ Technol 22(4):548–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9413-910.1007/s10956-012-9413-9 ↗
49. López-Vázquez E, Brunner TA, Siegrist M (2012) Perceived risks and benefits of nanotechnology applied to the food and packaging sector in México. Br Food J 114(2):197–205. https://doi.org/10.1108/0007070121120238610.1108/00070701211202386 ↗
50. Macnaghten P (2010) Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses, and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ Plan A 42(1):23–37. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4134910.1068/a41349 ↗
51. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250605699310.1177/0963662506056993 ↗
52. McComas KA, Besley JC (2011) Fairness and nanotechnology concern. Risk Anal 31(11):1749–1761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01676.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01676.x ↗
53. Metag J, Marcinkowski F (2014) Technophobia towards emerging technologies? A comparative analysis of the media coverage of nanotechnology in Austria, Switzerland and Germany. Journalism 15(4):463–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/146488491349104510.1177/1464884913491045 ↗
54. Miah A (2017) Nanoethics, science communication, and a fourth model for public engagement. NanoEthics 11(2):139–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0302-910.1007/s11569-017-0302-9 ↗
55. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2002) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
56. NNI Official website of the United States National Nanotechnology Initiative (2018a) Benefits and Applications. https://www.nano.gov/you/nanotechnology-benefits . Accessed 20 Feb 2018
57. NNI Official website of the United States National Nanotechnology Initiative (2018b) Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues. https://www.nano.gov/you/ethical-legal-issues . Accessed 15 Oct 2017
58. Petersen A, Anderson A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2007) Nanotechnologies, risk and society. J Risk Res 9(2):117–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369857070130676510.1080/13698570701306765 ↗
59. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9(2):191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369857070130690610.1080/13698570701306906 ↗
60. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rogers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):95–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.36210.1038/nnano.2008.362 ↗
61. Pidgeon N, Harthorn B, Satterfield T (2011) Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: emerging technologies, emerging challenges. Risk Anal 31(11):1694–1700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x ↗
62. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Satterfield T, Demski C (2017) Cross-national comparative communication and deliberation about the risks of nanotechnologies. In: Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA (eds) Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 141–156
63. Pillai RG, Bezbaruah AN (2017) Perceptions and attitude effects on nanotechnology acceptance: an exploratory framework. J Nanopart Res 19(2):41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3733-210.1007/s11051-016-3733-2 ↗
64. Priest S (2006) The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products: opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 8(5):563–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-9060-710.1007/s11051-005-9060-7 ↗
65. Priest SH (2009) Risk communication for nanobiotechnology: to whom, about what, and why? J Law Med Ethics 37(4):759–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00446.x10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00446.x ↗
66. Priest SH (2012) Nanotechnology and the public: risk perception and risk communication. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton
67. Priest S, Lane T, Greenhalgh T, Hand LJ, Kramer V (2011) Envisioning emerging nanotechnologies: a three-year panel study of South Carolina citizens. Risk Anal 31(11):1718–1733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01705.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01705.x ↗
68. Reisch LA, Scholl G, Bietz S (2011) ‘Better safe than sorry’: consumer perceptions of and deliberations on nanotechnologies. Int J Consum Stud 35(6):644–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00979.x10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00979.x ↗
69. Renn O, Benighaus C (2013) Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management. J Risk Res 16(3–4):293–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.72952210.1080/13669877.2012.729522 ↗
70. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9092-710.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 ↗
71. Retzbach A, Marschall J, Rahnke M, Otto L, Maier M (2011) Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: the roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. J Nanopart Res 13(12):6231–6244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0582-x10.1007/s11051-011-0582-x ↗
72. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16(3):345–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250607614110.1177/0963662506076141 ↗
73. Rogers-Hayden T, Mohr A, Pidgeon N (2007) Introduction: engaging with nanotechnologies–engaging differently? NanoEthics 1(2):123–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0013-810.1007/s11569-007-0013-8 ↗
74. Ronteltap A, Fischer AR, Tobi H (2011) Societal response to nanotechnology: converging technologies–converging societal response research? J Nanopart Res 13(10):4399–4410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0473-110.1007/s11051-011-0473-1 ↗
75. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 25(1):3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439000250010110.1177/016224390002500101 ↗
76. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CE, Conti J, Harthorn BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4(11):752–75910.1038/nnano.2009.265 ↗
77. Satterfield T, Conti J, Harthorn BH, Pidgeon N, Pitts A (2012) Understanding shifting perceptions of nanotechnologies and their implications for policy dialogues about emerging technologies. Sci Public Policy 40(2):247–260. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs08410.1093/scipol/scs084 ↗
78. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-210.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
79. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17(3):369–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250607128210.1177/0963662506071282 ↗
80. Shatkin JA, Abbott LC, Bradley AE, Canady RA, Guidotti T, Kulinowski KM, Löfstedt RE, Louis G, MacDonell M, Maynard AD, Paoli G, Sheremeta L, Walker N, White R, Williams R (2010) Nano risk analysis: advancing the science for nanomaterials risk management. Risk Anal 30(11):1680–1687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01493.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01493.x ↗
81. Siegrist M (2010) Predicting the future: review of public perception studies of nanotechnology. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16(4):837–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2010.50125510.1080/10807039.2010.501255 ↗
82. Siegrist M, Cousin ME, Kastenholz H, Wiek A (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.00210.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002 ↗
83. Simons J, Zimmer R, Vierboom C, Härlen I, Hertel R, Böl GF (2009) The slings and arrows of communication on nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11(7):1555–1571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9653-710.1007/s11051-009-9653-7 ↗
84. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.356350710.1126/science.3563507 ↗
85. Smith SES, Hosgood HD, Michelson ES, Stowe MH (2008) Americans’ nanotechnology risk perception: assessing opinion change. J Ind Ecol 12(3):459–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00032.x10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00032.x ↗
86. Sodano V, Gorgitano MT, Verneau F, Vitale CD (2016) Consumer acceptance of food nanotechnology in Italy. Br Food J 118(3):714–733. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2015-022610.1108/BFJ-06-2015-0226 ↗
87. Steenis ND, Fischer AR (2016) Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnology in food products: an attribute-based analysis. Br Food J 118(5):1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2015-033010.1108/BFJ-09-2015-0330 ↗
88. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9(1):6–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2014.01.00110.1016/j.nantod.2014.01.001 ↗
89. Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW, Marchant GE (2009) Not again! Public perception, regulation, and nanotechnology. Regulation & Governance 3(2):165–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01049.x10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01049.x ↗
90. Toumey C (2013) The three sisters of risk. Nat Nanotechnol 8(4):225–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2013.5210.1038/nnano.2013.52 ↗
91. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12(2):373–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-009-9809-510.1007/s11051-009-9809-5 ↗
92. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20(2):195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250935013910.1177/0963662509350139 ↗
93. Weaver DA, Lively E, Bimber B (2009) Searching for a frame: news media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Sci Commun 31(2):139–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700934034510.1177/1075547009340345 ↗
94. Wiedemann P, Schütz H, Spangenberg A, Krug HF (2011) Evidence maps: communicating risk assessments in societal controversies: the case of engineered nanoparticles. Risk Anal 31(11):1770–1783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01725.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01725.x ↗
95. Williams RA, Kulinowski KM, White R, Louis G (2010) Risk characterization for nanotechnology. Risk Anal 30(11):1671–1679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01513.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01513.x ↗
96. Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10(4):445–481 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0950543012009358610.1080/09505430120093586 ↗
97. Yue C, Zhao S, Cummings C, Kuzma J (2015) Investigating factors influencing consumer willingness to buy GM food and nano-food. J Nanopart Res 17(7):283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-015-3084-410.1007/s11051-015-3084-4 ↗