What do nanoscientists think of the way that the media has portrayed the field?

In their Nanotechnology and News Production study, researchers from the University of Plymouth, UK, examined UK national newspaper coverage of nanotechnology between April 1 2003 and June 30 2004. The study analyzed the 344 newspaper articles they found published during the time period under scrutiny. The researchers also conducted an email survey of journalists, editors and scientists, followed by in-depth interviews with some of them.
Press coverage of nanotechnologies was concentrated in a relatively small number of elite newspapers with fairly small distribution figures. The highest number of items appeared in The Guardian (24%). This was followed by The Times (19%), The Financial Times (14%), The Independent (10%), and The Daily Telegraph (7%). Mass-market newspapers carried relatively few items during the survey period. The News of the World, a Sunday mass-market publication with the highest circulation rate of all UK newspapers, was the only paper not to feature any articles containing the keywords.

The three most prominent overall frames for articles were “science fiction and popular culture”, “scientific discovery or project” and “business” (see Figure 1). The overall tone of the coverage was a mixture of strong optimism regarding the benefits of nanotechnologies, combined with concerns about the risks, and uncertainties about possible benefits or risks. However, these frames were not uniformly spread across all papers.

Figure 1

A significant amount of the coverage was not authored by a health, science or environmental correspondent or editor–writers who are likely to have at least some knowledge of the area. Indeed, 57% of items in the sample were by “general” or “other” correspondents. News items in the elite press were more likely to be authored by a science correspondent, while news items in popular newspapers were more often by a political or non-specialist news reporter.

The team also questioned 37 scientists about their views of news coverage via email. The scientists were chosen for their contributions to press coverage, the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering study on nanotechnology, and academia. Coverage of nanotechnologies peaked around Prince Charles’ purported comments concerning the grey goo scenario and the instigation and publication of the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering study. Despite both these events raising issues of toxicity and risk, the reaction in the press, while often sensationalist at the outset, went on to discuss nanotechnology in a supportive manner. This was due to the large reliance on scientists’ and industry views (used to “balance” the comments of Prince Charles) and also the shifting of the argument around nanotechnology to a political arena where Prince Charles’ views were situated as “anti-science”. This was a point recognized by one of the scientists who took part in the email survey:

“I ticked ‘detrimental to science’ mainly due to the negative portrayal of nanotech in the initial articles. However, such articles have been largely condemned by informed scientists, fuelling the media to condemning uninformed (and perhaps uneducated) politicians and figureheads speaking against issues they do not (fully) understand.”

Other scientists expressed a range of views on news coverage of nanotechnology (see figure 2). They widely agreed that the public presently lack an understanding of nanotechnologies–68% of survey respondents described the public as uninformed on the issue. Despite this low estimate, the scientists agreed with the principle of public engagement and 46% stated it was very realistic to engage with the public about nanotechnologies. This suggests scientists do not necessarily see prior information or knowledge as essential for public engagement on nanotechnologies.

Figure 2

The issue of sensationalism and “hyping” was also complex. When asked an identical question to members of the public in research commissioned by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering study–namely, “what will be the impact of nanotechnology in the next twenty years?”–results varied. A total of 54% of the scientists said that they think nanotechnology will improve our way of life in the next twenty years, 27% that it would depend on what nanotechnology is used for, and 11% that it would improve our way of life, also depending upon what it is used for. Thus while sensationalism was frequently described as negative for science, it was difficult to balance that with the advertising it could also provide, as this respondent indicates:

“I definitely share the view that nanotechnology has been hyped out of all proportion, which then means that the actual science done cannot live up to the expectations of nanobots, etc. However, almost any discussion of science in the media is a good thing.”

The press was frequently criticized for “inaccuracy” and lack of balance, with some recognition that the pressures of journalism frequently make these issues inescapable. There was also uncertainty about how metaphors and analogies, so often present in the news coverage analyzed, could aid understanding or provide a positive depiction of science. One scientist commented:

“Nanobots always feature highly in press coverage, as do artists’ renditions of Fantastic Voyage-like ‘nanosubs’ hunting down viruses in the bloodstream. I can understand why these concepts and images are continually used, as they certainly add a lot of interest to what might initially be seen as a dry science story. It seems that such ’sensationalized’ images are used to ’spice up’ otherwise well-balanced articles. Is this detrimental to science? It’s a moot point–if the ‘nanobot’ or ‘nanosub’ image succeeds in attracting a reader’s attention to a well-balanced and scientifically correct article then one might argue that the ‘artist’s impression’ has served an appropriate purpose and this has been beneficial to science. If, however, the nanobot or nanosub image is the only information that remains with the reader, then this is extremely misleading and is rather detrimental to the future of nanoscience.”

This statement echoes the view expressed by a number of interviewees that the press tends to use misleading imagery in its nanotechnology coverage. This dissatisfaction with reporting presents a real challenge for scientists to come up with more adequate imagery. Those working within the nanotech field would also benefit from ensuring that when they agree to speak to the press they find out the kind of questions they will be asked in advance, what the overall angle of the piece is and, if possible, who else the journalist is planning to speak to. Further research currently underway at the University of Plymouth that focuses on how journalists view their relationship with nanotech scientists will add greater insight into the factors shaping reporting in this emerging field.

Further information about the Nanotechnology and News Production project is available at http://www.research.plymouth.ac.uk/nanotechnology.

Alan Petersen is Professor of Sociology in the School of Sociology, Politics and Law at the University of Plymouth, UK. He has researched and written extensively in the sociology of health and illness, sociology of the body, the sociology of risk, and sexuality and gender studies. He has also published a number of articles on the media and genetics.

Alison Anderson is Principal Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Plymouth. She is author of Media,Culture and the Environment (UCL, 1997) and co-editor of The Changing Consumer (Routledge, 2002). Her recent articles on journalistic portrayals of environmental risks, genetics and war have appeared in Science as Culture, Sociological Research Online, Knowledge, Technology and Society and New Genetics and Society.

Stuart Allan is Professor in the School of Cultural Studies, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. He is the author of News Culture (Open University Press, 1999; second edition, 2004) and Media, Risk and Science (Open University Press, 2002). His edited collections include Environmental Risks and the Media (Routledge, 2000), and Journalism: Critical Issues (Open University Press, 2005).

Clare Wilkinson (PhD 2005) is a Research Fellow in the School of Sociology, Politics and Law at the University of Plymouth. Her thesis examined relationships between experts, the media and publics, contextualised by new genetic issues.

The development of products that use nanotechnology is racing ahead of the understanding of their potential health and safety risks, according to Patrick lin, research director of The Nanoethics Group, which is assembling industry and academic representatives worldwide to examine ethical and social issues raised by the technology.

“More and more nanotechnology products are being introduced into the marketplace, and there’s enough questions surrounding nanotechnology where we should really pause and really think” about steps that may be needed to protect health and safety, said Lin. He called for studies, such as an environmental impact study, “before we rush these products to the marketplace.”

This Santa Barbara, Calif.-based group today announced that it has created an advisory board of about 30 researchers from a variety of disciplines, including molecular manufacturing, medicine, law, bioethics and chemical engineering, to study the issues raised by nanotechnology development.

Nanotechnology involves the manipulation of material on an atomic scale, which allows scientists to develop incredibly small and strong materials and, in IT applications, components that theoretically could fit an enormous amount of computing power in extremely small devices.

But there are concerns. Nanotechnology is so new that it is not known what effect nanotech materials might have if they were to be inhaled or absorbed through a person’s skin, Lin said. And in a report earlier this month, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington said new laws may be needed to manage the risks associated with nanotechnology, including a requirement that companies submit plans demonstrating that their products are safe.

The Nanoethics Group, a nonprofit organization funded by its participants, sees itself as an advisory and educational group. Among those on its board is Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University; C. Christopher Hook, assistant professor of medicine and a consultant in hematology and medical ethics at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine; Ray Kurzweil, CEO of Kurzweil Technologies Inc.; and Tihamer Toth-Fejel, a research engineer at General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems.

Since genetically modified crops were first planted a decade ago, the acreage devoted to them worldwide has been growing at double-digit rates. The acreage in 2005 jumped 11% to 222 million acres.

The crops are gaining popularity in middle-income countries such as China, India and Brazil, the report says, with small cotton farmers in particular embracing a technology that allows them to grow more cotton while reducing the use of chemical pesticides.

Researchers and regulators are reshaping the landscape of science, medicine and health, engendering hope — and disquiet — for the future of humanity.

The report notes that the world’s most important food crop, rice, could be on the verge of a transformation. Iran has already commercialized gene-altered rice and China appears nearly ready to do so, the report says. Widespread acceptance of such rice could put crop biotechnology into the hands of the tens of millions of small rice farmers who grow nearly half the calories eaten by the human race.

Commercialization of rice that has been genetically altered to resist insects “has enormous implications for the alleviation of poverty, hunger and malnutrition, not only for the rice-growing and -consuming countries in Asia, but for all biotech crops and their acceptance on a global basis,” says the report, compiled by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. The group publishes an annual review, funded partly by the Rockefeller Foundation, that is considered the definitive global analysis of trends in crop biotechnology.

Proponents of the technology welcomed the findings, saying the spread of biotech crops demonstrates their usefulness for farmers and society. But two advocacy groups preemptively attacked the new report before it was published, putting out reports of their own this week that questioned industry “hype” and disputed the impact of gene-altered crops.

The Polaris Institute, an anti-globalization group in Ottawa, acknowledged that biotech crop acreage appears to be increasing but noted that the technology is still concentrated in a handful of countries, with the United States, Argentina, Canada and Brazil accounting for 90 percent of the world’s biotech acreage. The group pointed out that the technology is widely used in only a few crops — mainly cotton, corn, soy and canola.

Industry claims that the technology would help alleviate poverty in Africa have proven illusory so far, the group said, a point echoed by a report from environmental group Friends of the Earth. And the groups said growing biotech crops can hurt farmers’ export markets in countries that are skeptical of the technology.

“Instead of wholesale adoption, we are seeing at most experimentation,” David Macdonald, a Polaris Institute analyst, said in a statement. “Worldwide farmers have good reason to be wary.”

It’s clear, in fact, that even after a decade of growth, biotech crops are grown on only a small fraction of the world’s arable land — well under 1 percent. But the trend is also clear: When they were first commercialized in 1996, biotech crops were planted on 4.3 million acres in six countries, but the report says that by 2005 farmers were planting them on 222 million acres in 21 countries. “Biotech crops deliver substantial agronomic, environmental, economic, health and social benefits to farmers and, increasingly, to society at large,” the report says.

Almost a third of the agricultural land in the United States is planted in gene-altered crops, and more than half in Argentina and Paraguay, the report shows. Brazilian farmers had been illegally planting biotech crops for years, but that country has now legalized them and the acreage there is growing rapidly, the report says.

The report says China stands to become a major player in the field. Clive James, chairman of the group that published the report, estimated that 2,000 scientists in China are working on numerous gene-modified crops. “If we look at the investment in China in biotech crops, it is very significant,” he said in a conference call yesterday from Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Agricultural companies, led by Monsanto Co. of St. Louis, created the first biotech crops in the 1990s by moving genes from other species into plants. Bacterial genes give some plants the ability to resist worms, and others gain the ability to survive heavy applications of herbicides that kill nearby weeds.

But a controversy erupted over the technology in Europe in the late 1990s, with advocacy groups saying the crops posed unnecessary environmental risks and much of the European public agreeing.

The United States has been trying to pry open the European market, with some recent success. The new report notes that five of 25 European countries are now growing at least small quantities of biotech crops, though only Spain has embraced the technology in a big way.

The United States filed a complaint against Europe over the issue with the World Trade Organization, and a ruling is expected soon. The European Commission in Brussels has been battling resistance by individual countries and this week ordered Greece to permit a variety of gene-altered corn.