journal article·2011-12

Leading US nano-scientists’ perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings

Elizabeth A. Corley, Youngjae Kim, Dietram A. Scheufele

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 13· Issue 12
Publisher page

Abstract

Despite the significant increase in the use of nanotechnology in academic research and commercial products over the past decade, there have been few studies that have explored scientists’ perceptions and attitudes about the technology. In this article, we use survey data from the leading U.S. nano-scientists to explore their perceptions about two issues: the public communication of research findings and media coverage of nanotechnology, which serves as one relatively rapid outlet for public communication. We find that leading U.S. nano-scientists do see an important connection between the public communication of research findings and public attitudes about science. Also, there is a connection between the scientists’ perceptions about media coverage and their views on the timing of public communication; scientists with positive attitudes about the media are more likely to support immediate public communication of research findings, while others believe that communication should take place only after research findings have been published through a peer-review process. We also demonstrate that journalists might have a more challenging time getting scientists to talk with them about nanotechnology news stories because nano-scientists tend to view media coverage of nanotechnology as less credible and less accurate than general science media coverage. We conclude that leading U.S. nano-scientists do feel a sense of responsibility for communicating their research findings to the public, but attitudes about the timing and the pathway of that communication vary across the group.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Climate Change Communication and Perception · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Risk Perception and Management

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (56)

Show source-provided references
1. AAPOR (2009) Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys, 6th edn. AAPOR, Lenexa
2. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27(2):200–22010.1177/1075547005281472 ↗
3. Barke RP, JenkinsSmith H, Slovic P (1997) Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Soc Sci Q 78(1):167–176
4. Berube DM (2008) Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 10:23–37. doi: 10.1007/s11051-008-9362-710.1007/s11051-008-9362-7 ↗
5. Bostrom A, Lofstedt RE (2010) Nanotechnology risk communication past and prologue. Risk Anal 30(11):1645–1662. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01521.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01521.x ↗
6. Brown S (2009) The new deficit model. Nat Nanotechnol 4(10):608–610. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2009.27810.1038/nnano.2009.278 ↗
7. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading US nano-scientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11(7):1573–158510.1007/s11051-009-9671-5 ↗
8. Davies SR (2008) Constructing communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Sci Commun 29(4):413–434. doi: 10.1177/107554700931622210.1177/1075547008316222 ↗
9. Dibella SM, Ferri AJ, Padderud AB (1991) Scientists’ reasons for consenting to mass media interviews: a national survey. Journal Q 68(4):740–74910.1177/107769909106800415 ↗
10. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2008) Internet mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, Hoboken
11. Dunwoody S, Ryan M (1983) Public information persons as mediators between scientists and journalists. Journal Q 60(4):647–65610.1177/107769908306000410 ↗
12. Dunwoody S, Scott BT (1982) Scientists as mass media sources. Journal Q 59(1):52–5910.1177/107769908205900108 ↗
13. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz C, Flynn J, Satterfield TA (2000) Gender, race, and perceived risk: the ‘white male’ effect. Health Risk Soc 2(2):159–17210.1080/713670162 ↗
14. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x ↗
15. Frewer LJ, Hunt S, Brennan M, Kuznesof S, Ness M, Ritson C (2003) The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. J Risk Res 6(1):75–85. doi: 10.1080/136698703200004781510.1080/1366987032000047815 ↗
16. Gascoigne T, Metcalfe J (1997) Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Sci Commun 18(3):265–28210.1177/1075547097018003005 ↗
17. Geller G, Bernhardt BA, Gardner M, Rodgers J, Holtzman NA (2005) Scientists’ and science writers’ experiences reporting genetic discoveries: toward an ethic of trust in science journalism. Genet Med 7(3):198–205. doi: 10.1097/01.gim.0000156699.78856.2310.1097/01.GIM.0000156699.78856.23 ↗
18. Glass B (1993) The ethical basis of science. In: RE B, Reiser S EH (eds) The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 43–55
19. Greenberg MR, Schneider DF (1995) Gender differences in risk perception: effects differ in stressed vs non-stressed environments. Risk Anal 15(4):503–511. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00343.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00343.x ↗
20. Gunter B, Kinderlerer J, Beyleveld D (1999) The media and public understanding of biotechnology: a survey of scientists and journalists. Sci Commun 20(4):373–39410.1177/1075547099020004002 ↗
21. Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–81110.1023/B:RIAN.0000005926.03250.c0 ↗
22. Hartz J, Chappell R (1997) Worlds apart: how the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. First Amendment Center, Nashville
23. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12(2):215–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00669.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00669.x ↗
24. Kurath M, Gisler P (2009) Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 18(5):559–573. doi: 10.1177/096366250910472310.1177/0963662509104723 ↗
25. Lazo JK, Kinnell JC, Fisher A (2000) Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Anal 20(2):179–19310.1111/0272-4332.202019 ↗
26. Lievrouw L (1993) Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Crit Stud Mass Commun 7:1–1010.1080/15295039009360159 ↗
27. Maille ME, Saint-Charles J, Lucotte M (2010) The gap between scientists and journalists: the case of mercury science in Quebec’s press. Public Underst Sci 19(1):70–79. doi: 10.1177/096366250910269010.1177/0963662509102690 ↗
28. Marchant G, Sylvester D (2006) Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34(4):714–72510.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00091.x ↗
29. Marchant G, Sylvester D, Abbott K (2007) Nanotechnology regulation: the United States approach. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Ludlow K (eds) New global frontiers in regulation: the age of nanotechnology. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK
30. Marchant G, Sylvester D, Abbott K (2009) A new soft law approach to nanotechnology oversight: a voluntary product certification scheme. UCLA J Environ Law Policy 28(1):123–15210.2139/ssrn.1483910 ↗
31. Mathews DJH, Kalfoglou A, Hudson K (2005) Geneticists’ views on science policy formation and public outreach. Am J Med Genet A 137A(2):161–169. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.3084910.1002/ajmg.a.30849 ↗
32. McInerney C, Bird N, Nucci M (2004) The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: the case of genetically modified food. Sci Commun 26(1):44–74. doi: 10.1177/107554700426702410.1177/1075547004267024 ↗
33. Mellor F (2010) Negotiating uncertainty: asteroids, risk and the media. Public Underst Sci 19(1):16–33. doi: 10.1177/096366250708730710.1177/0963662507087307 ↗
34. Moore B, Singletary M (1985) Scientific sources’ perceptions of network news accuracy. Journal Q 62(4):816–82310.1177/107769908506200415 ↗
35. Nelkin D (1996) An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet 347(9015):1600–160310.1016/S0140-6736(96)91081-8 ↗
36. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96(10):1767–1778. doi: 10.3732/ajb.090004110.3732/ajb.0900041 ↗
37. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA, Shanahan J, Moy P, Brossard D, Lewenstein BV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Commun Res 29(5):584–608. doi: 10.1177/00936500223619610.1177/009365002236196 ↗
38. Peters HP (1995) The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media Cult Soc 17(1):31–48. doi: 10.1177/01634439501700100310.1177/016344395017001003 ↗
39. Peters HP, Brossard D, de Cheveigné S, Dunwoody S, Kallfass M, Miller S, Tsuchida S (2008) Science communication: interactions with the mass media. Science 321(5886):204–20510.1126/science.1157780 ↗
40. Petersen A, Anderson A, Wilkinson C, Allan S (2007) Nanotechnologies, risk and society. Health Risk Soc 9(2):117–124. doi: 10.1080/1369857070130676510.1080/13698570701306765 ↗
41. Petersen A, Anderson A, Allan S, Wilkinson C (2009) Opening the black box: scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Underst Sci 18(5):512–530. doi: 10.1177/096366250708420210.1177/0963662507084202 ↗
42. Phillips DP, Kanter EJ, Bednarczyk B, Tastad PL (1991) Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. N Engl J Med 325(16):1180–118310.1056/NEJM199110173251620 ↗
43. Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’? Health Risk Soc 9(2):191–21010.1080/13698570701306906 ↗
44. Pitkethly M (2009) Nanotechnology, regulation and the environment. Mater Today 12(1–2):2310.1016/S1369-7021(09)70038-0 ↗
45. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck DJ (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(5):715–72810.1007/s11051-007-9266-y ↗
46. Powell MC, Griffin MPA, Tai S (2008) Bottom-up risk regulation? How nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps challenge federal and state environmental agencies. Environ Manage 42(3):426–443. doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9129-z10.1007/s00267-008-9129-z ↗
47. Rabino I (1998) Societal and commercial issues affecting the future of biotechnology in the United States: a survey of researchers’ perceptions. Naturwissenschaften 85(3):109–11610.1007/s001140050464 ↗
48. Reinert K, Andrews L, Keenan R (2006) Nanotechnology Nexus: intersection of research, science, technology, and regulation. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12(5):811–818. doi: 10.1080/1080703060084860110.1080/10807030600848601 ↗
49. Ruth A, Lundy L, Telg R, Irani T (2005) Trying to relate: media relations training needs of agricultural scientists. Sci Commun 27(1):127–145. doi: 10.1177/107554700527834710.1177/1075547005278347 ↗
50. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T-j, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnol 2(12):732–73410.1038/nnano.2007.392 ↗
51. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D, Mertz CK, Neil N, Bartlett S (1995) Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal 15(6):661–675. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x ↗
52. Suleski J, Ibaraki M (2010) Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: a quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Underst Sci 19(1):115–125. doi: 10.1177/096366250809677610.1177/0963662508096776 ↗
53. Treise D, Weigold MF (2002) Advancing science communication: a survey of science communicators. Sci Commun 23(3):310–32210.1177/107554700202300306 ↗
54. Tyshenko MG, Farhat N, Lewis R, Shilnikova N (2010) Applying a precautionary risk management strategy for regulation of nanotechnology. Int J Nanotechnol 7(2–3):243–26410.1504/IJNT.2010.031313 ↗
55. Wardak A, Gorman ME, Swami N, Rejeski D (2007) Environmental regulation of nanotechnology and the TSCA. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 26(2):48–5610.1109/MTAS.2007.4295056 ↗
56. Weigold MF (2001) Communicating science: a review of the literature. Sci Commun 23(2):164–19310.1177/1075547001023002005 ↗