the framing of nanotechnologies in the british newspaper...

10.1177/1075547005281472SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONAnderson et al. / NANOTECH IN BRITISH NEWSPAPERS

The Framing of Nanotechnologiesin the British Newspaper Press

ALISON ANDERSONUniversity of Plymouth

STUART ALLANUniversity of the West of England, Bristol

ALAN PETERSENUniversity of Plymouth

CLARE WILKINSONUniversity of Plymouth

This article investigates how developments in nanotechnology were framed in the Britishnational newspaper press during a formative period in their rising public salience. Specifically,an intervention by Prince Charles in April 2003 is shown to have acted as the principal catalystfor much of the ensuing newspaper reporting over the next fifteen months. This study, in taking asits focus the operation of specific news frames, identifies a range of factors that shaped the initialterms of the subsequent debate (between both advocates and critics of nanotechnology) from onenewspaper to the next during this period. The analysis suggests that the involvement of a celeb-rity may play a crucial role in enhancing the newsworthiness of an issue and influencing its sub-sequent framing in the newspaper press.

Keywords: nanotechnology; science journalism; news frames; news sources; celebrity; sci-ence fiction

Precisely how the news media frame the nature and range of issues associatedwith emergent technologies is highly significant since it has the potential tolegitimize certain definitions over and above others. This is especially so

Science Communication, Vol. 27 No. 2, December 2005 200-220DOI: 10.1177/1075547005281472© 2005 Sage Publications

200

when the technologies in question pertain to control over life processes (suchas genetically modified (GM) crops, embryonic stem cells, or human clon-ing), or where the long-term implications or possible risks involved are indispute. Typically it is the case that there is considerable competition amongdifferent news sources vying for position, each of whom is likely to beactively seeking to establish their definition of the attendant issues as the pre-ferred one to be adopted. Journalists, in turn, are frequently presented withthe challenging task of negotiating these contending accounts of reality, aprocess that can be fraught with difficulties (Allan 2002; Nelkin 1987;Nisbet, Brossard, and Kroepsch 2003; Tanner 2004).

Accordingly, in examining the news reporting of nanotechnology, it isnecessary to ask: why are certain truth-claims being framed by journalists asreasonable, credible, and thus newsworthy while others, at the same time, arebeing ignored, trivialized, or marginalized? A focus on “framing” strategies,we believe, helps to make apparent typical sorts of taken-for-grantedassumptions made by journalists in the course of their reporting. Specifically,news frames may be conceptualized as “principles of selection, emphasis,and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, whathappens, and what matters” (Gitlin 1980, 6; see also Priest 1994; Miller andRiechert 2000, 45; Nisbet and Lewenstein 2002, 361). The subject of oftenintense negotiation between journalists and their editors, as well as theirsources, frames help to render “an infinity of noticeable details” into mean-ingful categories. Nanotechnology, as we intend to show, may be framed in avariety of different ways, depending upon the influence placed upon suchfactors as economic importance or social and ethical implications. Neitherarbitrary nor fixed, frames facilitate the journalist’s imposition of a narrativeframework on his or her interpretation of a news event’s significance in thename of a “good story.”

This article’s principal aim is to investigate how developments in nano-technology were framed in the British national newspaper press betweenApril 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004, a time when a number of pertinent nanotechissues began to achieve public salience.1 This period commences with a pub-lic intervention by Prince Charles, where his sharply expressed views aboutnanotechnology sparked a wide-ranging debate in the newspaper press. Ech-oes of this debate resounded over the months to come, leading up to impor-tant policy events such as the publication of the Royal Society and Royal

Anderson et al. / NANOTECH IN BRITISH NEWSPAPERS 201

Authors’Note: Please address correspondence to: Alison Anderson, School of Sociology, Poli-tics and Law, Faculty of Social Science and Business, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus,Plymouth, PL4 8AA, Devon, UK; phone: 44-0-1752-233-234; fax: 44-0-1752-233-206; e-mail:[email protected].

Academy of Engineering report in July 2004. This early stage in the framingof nanotechnologies in the UK is of particular interest, since it involved aperiod of intense coverage in a section of the press over a relatively shortperiod. To date, few systematic studies of news media coverage ofnanotechnologies have been undertaken, especially outside of the UnitedStates (studies examining the U.S. elite press and popular science includeFaber 2005; Friedman and Egolf 2005; Gorss and Lewenstein 2005;Stephens 2004; Stevens, this issue). By undertaking an analysis of the fram-ing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press during this formativeperiod, this study intends to gain fresh insights into how the initial terms ofreference for much of the ensuing news coverage were established. It will beargued that the press play a potentially crucial role in framing newly emerg-ing issues, mainly by helping to establish the initial parameters of debate, byidentifying certain news sources as pertinent and credible, and by providingtopic-defining reference points (Allan, Adam, and Carter 2000; Miller andRiechert 2000; Priest 1994).

Nanotechnology in the News

The available survey data for the UK suggest that public knowledge aboutnanotechnology is limited. Research carried out for the Royal Society andRoyal Academy of Engineering (2004) enquiry, for example, found that gen-eral recognition of nanotechnology in Britain is minimal—evidently only 29percent of respondents had heard of the term, and only 19 percent could pro-vide a definition. Nevertheless, nanotechnology is increasingly attractingattention in sections of the newspaper press, especially on the financialpages, as developments unfold apace (Anderson et al. 2005).

Many of the stakeholders concerned about public responses tonanotechnology—such as various government officials, scientists, industryspokespeople, citizen-action pressure groups, consumer organizations, aca-demics, and the like—have taken an active interest in how nanotechnology isbeing represented in the news media. Painful lessons have been learned fromthe media panics surrounding crises such as BSE or “mad cow disease” andGM crops (where a language of “Frankenfoods” and “killer tomatoes” per-meated public culture). For some stakeholders, the emergence of nano-technology is regarded as the ideal context in which to introduce more effec-tive strategies for “upstream communication,” with the creation of programssuch as Small Talk being introduced (Huijer 2003; Small Talk 2005; TheRoyal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering 2004; Wilsdon and Willis2004).2 For nanotechnology’s advocates, there has been widespread recogni-

202 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

tion of the need to make the case for the potential benefits (economic, social,environmental, and so forth) of it while, at the same time, acknowledging thereasons why others are skeptical, even fearful, about possible threats, risks,and hazards (Gaskell et al. 2005; Roco and Bainbridge 2001; Treder 2004).Consistent with current debates around the public understanding of science,much is being made of a “dialogue” approach to science communication. Ashared assumption here is that an enhanced culture of openness about allaspects of nanotechnology research will help to restore greater public trust inscience.

Previous studies highlight the importance of investigating how claimsmade by certain news sources—especially those that enjoy high status posi-tions in society—can be processed by journalists in a manner that allowsthem to become the “primary definers” (Hall et al. 1978) of controversial top-ics. The most powerful of these sources, it follows, are those that succeed insetting down the initial interpretation of the news topic. To the extent that thisinterpretation is mobilized as the most legitimate or credible one available,it will decisively influence the terms of reference within which furthernews coverage takes place. We focus here upon one particular case involvingPrince Charles’s intervention in the nanotechnology debate, arguing thatcelebrity influence can have a significant impact in shaping subsequent fram-ing of the issues, which gave particular prominence to science fiction frames.For the purposes of this study, our research agenda revolves around a series ofquestions. Taken together, they define the objectives of our enquiry: specifi-cally, how have news stories on nanotechnologies been framed during thistime period in different sections of the national newspaper press? Whichclaims makers have been featured most often in the coverage, and to whatextent have they been portrayed as credible, expert sources? And, finally,when, and under what circumstances, have certain issues, themes, and de-bates gained prominence? As we show, a number of news frames predomi-nated during this period, corresponding with and following coverage ofPrince Charles’s comments on the issue, but with the level of coveragevarying between newspaper types.

Methods

The sample of national newspaper coverage under scrutiny includes arti-cles selected from the period April 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, during whicha number of major nanotechnology-related events occurred. These eventsincluded Prince Charles’s public statement about nanotechnology (withmuch of the ensuing press coverage outlining “grey goo” scenarios) as well


as the initiation of a major enquiry on nanotechnology by the UK’s RoyalSociety and Royal Academy of Engineering. An initial pilot study of threenewspapers was undertaken which established that the keywords “nano,”“nanotechnology,” “grey goo,” and “nanobot/nanorobot” were sufficient toidentify relevant news items. For the main study, then, the sample includedten UK-based national daily newspapers and eight UK-based nationalSunday newspapers so as to establish a comparative evidential basis. Thedaily newspapers sampled were The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Tele-graph, The Independent, The Financial Times, The Daily Mail, The DailyExpress, The Daily Mirror, The Sun, and The Daily Star. The Sunday news-papers sampled were The Sunday Times, The Observer, The Sunday Tele-graph, The Independent on Sunday, The Mail on Sunday, The SundayExpress, The Sunday Mirror, and The News of the World. Although it isunusual in studies of the news media to include tabloid coverage that is notregarded as “opinion-leading,” in our view the high circulation rates of thesenewspapers warranted their inclusion within the sample (Hijmans, Pleijter,and Wester 2003; Nisbet et al. 2003; Nisbet and Lewenstein 2002).

Our sample articles were identified via LexisNexis Professional in thefirst instance, and then any remaining articles were located via NewsBankNewspapers UK search facilities. The use of both archives ensured that oursample was comprehensive.3 In total, 344 newspaper articles were generatedfrom the sampling period. Each article in the sample was analyzed using acoding schedule, which recorded quantitative details including newspaper,date, page number, author attribution, and sources cited or referred to. Wealso made note of qualitative aspects of the data. Each news item was codedfor its leading news “frame” and the “tone” of the item, with the assistance ofa schedule developed by Stephens (2004) for his analysis of news mediaframes of nanoscience and nanotechnology in the United States. We alsosought to identify further frames that were specific to the UK context.Finally, the articles were coded for their attribution of risks and benefits asso-ciated with nanotechnology. Although this latter aspect of our findings willnot be discussed extensively in this article, this was also based on prior U.S.analysis (see Stephens, this issue).

In order to track shifts in framing over the period so as to capture a sense ofthe rise and fall of coverage, we also analyzed news frames in three-monthblocks; that is, quartiles. By examining articles in their entirety, we sought todiscern how specific news frames were positioned in hierarchical terms fromthe top of the article (most significant or newsworthy) to the bottom (leastsignificant or newsworthy). This assignment of news value is likely to beundertaken by the journalist as a matter of habitual practice. “Journalistsdevelop specific media frameworks that enable them to process, report, and


present large amounts of information quickly and routinely,” as Conrad andMarkens (2001) observe; “they must decide how to frame the issue, choosingfrom a number of available frames to give meaning to their story” (p. 375).Given that news frame and tone are open to a degree of subjective interpreta-tion on the part of the coder, a sample of 12 percent of the newspaper articleswas coded separately to ensure intercoder reliability. Electronic copies ofeach news item were stored using an N5 database, which allowed relevantnews articles to be kept in their entirety but also to be categorized by theirdominant news frame for the purposes of analysis. We also took hard copiesof each newspaper article. This gave us a “feel” of the original article, whichcan sometimes be neglected using electronic versions alone (Hansen et al.1998).

Univariate descriptive analysis and bivariate analysis was undertaken onthe data using SPSS11.5. This analysis resulted in the following cluster ofnews frames: science fiction and popular culture (e.g., reviews of books, tele-vision, films, radio); scientific discovery or project (e.g., molecular motors,microaircraft, computing); business story (e.g., Polaron flotation,Nanotechnology Index); Prince Charles interest (e.g., specific focus on per-ceived attitude/concern of Prince Charles); social implications and risks(e.g., discussions of regulation, impact on developing countries); funding ofnano (e.g., DTI funding pledges, Research Council announcements); educa-tional or career advice (e.g., closure of chemistry departments, City andGuilds reports); medical discovery or project (e.g., “nanofabricated” joints,“nanoshell” targeted cancer treatments); celebratory (e.g., Royal Society ofChemistry Awards, The Foundation for Science and Technology Dinner);and other (e.g., competitions, interviews).

Findings and Analysis

Our findings suggest that the press coverage during the period under scru-tiny was concentrated in a relatively small number of elite newspapers.Eighty-six percent (n = 296) originated from the ten sampled daily newspa-pers and 14 percent (n = 48) from the eight sampled Sunday newspapers (seeTable 1). Of the daily newspapers, the vast majority of articles (n = 255, or 74percent) appeared in the elite press (mostly broadsheet), which have rela-tively low circulation figures, while the rest (n = 89, or 26 percent) appearedin the more popular (i.e., mostly high circulation) newspapers. The Guardianfeatured the largest number of articles (n = 81, or 24 percent) of the dailynewspaper coverage. This was followed by The Times (n = 65, or 19 percent),The Financial Times (n = 47, or 14 percent), The Independent (n = 36, or 10


percent), and The Daily Telegraph (n = 26, or 7 percent). However, referencesto nanoscience and nanotechnology appeared in all of the sampled news-papers, with the exception of The News of the World, a Sunday tabloid news-paper, which did not feature any articles containing the keywords during thissampling period. The News of the World has the highest circulation of all theUK national newspapers.

This concentration of coverage to a few elite daily newspapers with rela-tively small distribution figures means that the visibility of the issue had beenlargely restricted to the relatively small middle-class and business groupswho can be assumed to be the readers of these newspapers—which mayaccount for the low level of recognition of the issue noted by the Royal Soci-ety and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004). The majority of readers ofThe Guardian (61 percent) and The Times (63 percent) are from a profes-sional or skilled group. The Daily Mirror, which contributed eighteen articlesto the sample, was the only newspaper offering more than a few articles fea-turing nanotechnology. Its demographic profile includes large sections of thesemi- or unskilled classes. Around a third (35 percent) of The Daily Mirror


TABLE 1Frequency of Articles by Newspaper

Average NetFrequency Circulation per Issue

Newspaper (Percentage) January 31, 2005, to February 27, 2005

The Guardian 81 (24) 366,645The Times 65 (19) 679,190The Financial Times 47 (14) 419,386The Independent 36 (10) 263,595The Daily Telegraph 26 (7) 907,329The Mirror 18 (5) 1,719,743The Sunday Times 17 (5) 1,400,873The Daily Mail 10 (3) 2,462,533The Observer 10 (3) 444,509The Daily Express 8 (2) 948,375The Mail on Sunday 6 (2) 2,374,856The Sunday Telegraph 5 (1) 686,779The Sunday Express 5 (1) 1,007,095The Independent on Sunday 4 (1) 208,563The Sun 3 (1) 3,273,116The Star 2 (1) 854,480The Sunday Mirror 1 (1) 1,534,736The News of the World 0 (0) 3,649,466TOTAL 344(100) —

SOURCE: Circulation sources ABC.

readers are semi- or unskilled workers, or at the lowest levels of subsistence,such as pensioners (Newspaper Marketing Agency 2005).

As Table 2 shows, a significant proportion of all articles featured a sci-ence-related frame, which indicates strong news interest in the scientificimplications or applications of nanotechnologies. However, the publicationof an approximately equal number of articles with the “science fiction andpopular culture” frame and the “scientific discovery or project” frame con-veys a mixed picture of the relationship between nanotechnology and sci-ence. It would seem to reflect uncertainty about whether nanotechnologiescan be most adequately contextualized within the realms of science fiction orscience fact. The “business story” frame was similarly pronounced, being thethird most common frame overall, which indicates strong interest in the eco-nomic implications of nanotechnologies.

It should be noted that these frames were not uniformly spread across thenewspapers. For example, The Guardian had by far the largest single numberof articles with a “scientific discovery” frame (n = 17, or 31 percent) and a“social implications” frame (n = 15, or 47 percent), while The FinancialTimes, perhaps not surprisingly, had the largest single number of articles witha “business story” frame (n = 20, or 38 percent) and a “funding” frame (n =


TABLE 2News Frames

FrequencyNews Frame (Percentage)

Science fiction and popular culture (for example, reviews of books, TV,films, radio) 55 (16)

Scientific discovery or project (for example, molecular motors,microaircraft, computing) 54 (16)

Business story (for example, Polaron flotation, Nanotechnology Index) 52 (15)Prince Charles interest (for example, specific focus on perceived attitude/

concern of Prince Charles) 39 (11)Other (for example, competitions, interviews) 33 (9.5)Social implications and risks (for example, discussions of regulation,

impact on developing countries) 32 (9)Funding of nano (for example, DTI funding pledges, Research Council

announcements) 27 (8)Educational or career advice (for example, closure of chemistry

departments, City and Guilds reports) 26 (7.5)Medical discovery or project (for example, “nanofabricated” joints,

“nanoshell” targeted cancer treatments) 20 (6)Celebratory (for example, Royal Society of Chemistry Awards, The

Foundation for Science and Technology Dinner) 6 (2)Total 344 (100)

10, or 37 percent). The “science fiction and popular culture” frame appearedmainly in The Times, The Independent, and The Guardian, accounting for 69percent of all coverage, while stories with an “educational” frame appearedmostly in The Guardian (n = 12, or 46 percent) (see Table 3). Given theirreadership, it is likely that these newspapers provide a somewhat differentinflection to stories than those with the same frames appearing in the morepopular newspapers, though we are less concerned with the details of thishere than with the overall pattern of frames.

When one analyzes the data according to quartiles (Table 4), one obtains apicture of the rise and fall of different news frames over the period. The larg-est single number of articles appeared during the first quartile, April to June2003. The coverage declined thereafter, but remained at a reasonably steadylevel for the rest of the period. This table also shows the dominance of partic-ular frames at different times. Thus, of the thirty-nine articles with the frame“Prince Charles’s interest,” twenty-nine (i.e., 74 percent) appeared betweenApril and June 2003. A large proportion of the articles with “social implica-tions and risks” and “science fiction and popular culture” frames alsoappeared during this period (twenty of thirty-two or 62 percent and nineteenof fifty-five or 34 percent, respectively). While the frames “Prince Charles’sinterest” as well as those focusing upon social impacts and risks” gained par-ticular prominence in the first quartile of the study, they received little cover-age during the rest of the sample period.

The early framing of issues during the period from April 1 to June 30,2003, was dominated by Prince Charles’s public comments on nanotechnol-ogy, characterized by some newspapers as a forthcoming “grey goo” crisis (itis worth noting that Prince Charles did not actually use the phrase, however).Interestingly, other dominant news frames during this period were “sciencefiction” and “social implications and risks” (see Table 4). This period duringthe initial framing of nanotech is significant since early coverage can poten-tially set the agenda for later discussion (Petersen 2002). Approximately athird, 32 percent (n = 110), of the total sample of newspaper articles werepublished during the first three months of the sampling period (see Table 4).

The story broke on April 27, 2003 in The Mail on Sunday, a right-wing,midmarket newspaper. From the outset the issue was framed as a “political”rather than “science” story. Jonathan Oliver, the newspaper’s political corre-spondent, secured front-page coverage with his report headlined “Charles:‘Grey Goo’ Threat to the World” (Oliver 2003a, 1). The article continued onpage two of the same edition, with a further “full report,” headlined “Night-mare of the Grey Goo” on pages 8 and 9 (Oliver 2003b, 8). Finally, on page24, there was an item authored by Jonathan Porritt, Chairman of the Govern-ment’s Sustainable Development Commission, discussing the regulation of


TA

BL

E 3

New

s F

ram

e by

New

spap

er

Scie

ntifi

cM

edic

alP

rinc

eSo

cial

Bus

ines

sSc

ienc

eN

ewsp

aper

Dis

cove

ryD

isco

very

Cha

rles

Impl

icat

ions

Stor

yF

undi

ngC

eleb

rato

ryE

duca

tion

alF

icti

onO

ther

The

Gua

rdia

n17

36

155

70

1212

4T

he T

imes

55

98

61

51

1312

The

Fin

anci

al T

imes

72

14

2010

01

11

The

Ind

epen

dent

61

22

60

02

134

The

Dai

ly T

eleg

raph

72

30

25

10

24

The

Mir

ror

33

20

03

02

41

The

Sun

day

Tim

es1

12

06

00

31

3T

he D

aily

Mai

l1

14

12

00

01

0T

he O

bser

ver

30

11

20

00

21

The

Dai

ly E

xpre

ss0

02

11

00

30

1T

he M

ail o

n Su

nday

00

40

00

00

20

The

Sun

day

Tele

grap

h0

01

01

00

11

1T

he S

unda

y E

xpre

ss0

21

00

10

01

0T

he I

ndep

ende

nt o

n Su

nday

10

00

10

00

11

The

Sun

30

00

00

00

00

The

Sta

r0

00

00

00

11

0T

he S

unda

y M

irro

r0

01

00

00

00

0To

tal

5420

3932

5227

626

5533

NO

TE

: Bol

d in

dica

tes

mos

t pop

ular

new

s fr

ame

by s

peci

fic

new

spap

er, w

here

app

licab

le.

209

TA

BL

E 4

Dom

inan

t N

ews

Fra

me

by M

onth

Apr

il to

July

toO

ctob

er to

Janu

ary

toA

pril

toTo

tal

New

s F

ram

eJu

ne 2

003

Sept

embe

r 20

03D

ecem

ber

2003

Mar

ch 2

004

June

200

4(P

erce

ntag

e)

Scie

nce

fict

ion

and

popu

lar

cultu

re19

128

106

55(1

6)Sc

ient

ific

dis

cove

ry o

r pr

ojec

t12

119

1210

54(1

6)B

usin

ess

stor

y8

69

1811

52(1

5)Pr

ince

Cha

rles

inte

rest

294

31

239

(11)

Oth

er7

77

102

33(9

.5)

Soci

al im

plic

atio

ns a

nd r

isks

203

15

332

(9)

Fund

ing

of n

ano

74

47

527

(8)

Edu

catio

nal o

r ca

reer

adv

ice

35

77

426

(7.5

)M

edic

al d

isco

very

or

proj

ect

47

31

520

(6)

Cel

ebra

tory

10

20

36

(2)

Tota

l11

0(3

2)60

(17)

52(1

5)71

(21)

51(1

5)34

4(1

00)

210

these “new” technologies (Porritt 2003, 24). From the first lines of the front-page story, the political focus was clear as the article stated that PrinceCharles was on a “collision course” with Prime Minister Tony Blair as theLabour government were keen to support, both politically and financially,developments in nanotechnology (Oliver 2003a, 1).

Further coverage included comments from Member of Parliament Dr.Ian Gibson reportedly stating that Prince Charles should “keep his noseout” (Oliver 2003b, 8). Jonathan Oliver’s initial article suggested that ZacGoldsmith, editor of The Ecologist, had encouraged the Prince’s interest bypassing on a copy of the ETC Group’s report The Big Down. Though the cov-erage pointed out that the Prince was organizing an “emergency summit”with scientists contacted via the Royal Society, his views were stronglyframed as unsupportive and depicted as his latest environmentalist crusade.The Sunday Times also covered the story on this date; however, its news pieceby Jasper Gerard took a more lighthearted approach, describing “mysticCharlie Wales jibbering” over nanotechnology (Gerard 2003, 17).

In the coming days, without a specific comment or reaction from thePrince, the news coverage began to speculate more voraciously on his atti-tudes and stance and the inspiration for his interest. On April 28, 2003, TheDaily Mail, The Independent, and The Times covered the story. AndrewPierce’s (2003, 9) coverage in The Times claimed that Prince Charles had notread Michael Crichton’s book Prey, but had gathered his information “from anumber of scientific journals.” This was the only article throughout the entiresampling period that referred to an official “spokesperson” in relation toPrince Charles’s concerns. By April 29, 2003, the issue was covered in TheTimes, The Guardian, The Independent, and The Mirror. The articles in bothThe Guardian and The Independent also highlighted that the Prince had readthe ETC group’s report, The Big Down, although Tim Radford’s report in TheGuardian stressed that Charles had also contacted the Royal Society forinformation (Radford 2003, 3).

In these three months nanotechnology had firmly entered the political andmedia arena, with the “two sides of the debate” about nanotechnology—advocates being Lord Sainsbury, Tony Blair, and Ian Gibson and critics beingPrince Charles, Caroline Lucas, and the ETC Group—effectively establishedby the end of this period of reporting. Coverage was sporadic after May 7,2003. There remained confusion about Prince Charles’s specific views; theywere most commonly attributed to the ETC Group, though some articleshighlighted that the Royal Society was organizing a meeting between thePrince and those working in nanotechnology. Typically, the articles framedby the Prince’s interest attempted to achieve “balance” by equally discussingboth risks and benefits. Only four of the thirty-nine articles framed by his


concern placed more focus on the risks of nanotechnology; these included anarticle in The Mirror, discussing the use of nanoproducts in skincare, and aletter to The Times criticizing the manner in which the Prince’s concerns wereportrayed as scaremongering and ignorant (Loening 2003, 19; Smith 2003,22). The concern of environmentalists, pressure groups, and the Prince hadfirmly been set as the antiscientific views of “nano-luddites.”

However, on June 11, 2003, the Government’s Office of Science andTechnology (OST) launched The Royal Society and Royal Academy ofEngineering Joint Study on Nanotechnology, which promptly reignited pressinterest in the issues. Evidently by electing to read it against the backdrop ofthe controversy surrounding Prince Charles, The Daily Mail and The Guard-ian reports of the launch the following day were quick to focus on the politi-cal ramifications. Though the study was conducted independently of thePrince, awareness of his prior contact with the Royal Society resulted in somecoverage suggesting a direct link.

While the Prince’s comments generated a significant amount of pressinterest, in the main they were treated with skepticism by most national UKnewspapers. Yet the involvement of a celebrity clearly boosted the newswor-thiness of the issues. Previous studies suggest that increasingly celebritiesplay a crucial role in sustaining media attention to an issue despite a lack ofpolicy events (see Corbett and Mori 1999; Turner 2004). It is worth noting inthis context certain parallels between the Prince’s intervention into the debateabout nanotechnologies and his earlier intervention in the controversy overGM crops and food.4 In both cases, he chose to give initial prominence to hisconcerns through articles in the Daily Mail or its Sunday counterpart, TheMail on Sunday.5 It is noteworthy, however, that the vast majority of articleson nanotechnology during the subsequent period of reporting on this issueappeared in the so-called quality press, which has a much smaller readership(see Table 1). In the nanotech case this was via a commentary piece writtenby close friend and advisor Jonathan Porritt. Despite NGOs (nongovern-mental organizations) featuring infrequently in our sample of press coverage,reference was made to dystopian visions of nanotechnology via the news pegthat the Prince’s statements provided. Indeed, over the period of our study,the Prince was found to be the single most commonly referred to individual inthe press coverage, appearing in a total of thirty-nine articles (see Table 4).

Table 4 shows that the coverage of some frames was also reasonably con-sistent throughout the period: for example, articles with the “scientific dis-covery or project” frame were fairly evenly distributed across the differentquartiles. However, there was a rise and fall in the preponderance of differentframes over time in response to particular events.


When the articles were coded for their attribution of risks and benefitsassociated with nanotechnology, the following nominal categories emerged:

• Benefits outweigh risks (n = 132)• Risks outweigh benefits (n = 38)• Risks/benefits need to be weighed but unclear if a benefit or risk (n = 56)• Technical limits to progress, not limits associated to ethical, legal, or social

implications (n = 16)• Not applicable (n = 102)

In other words, the overall picture conveyed is one of a mixture of strong opti-mism in relation to the benefits of nanotechnologies combined with concernsabout the risks and uncertainties about possible benefits or risks. However,there were some interesting differences between newspapers. The mid-market Daily Express and Daily Mail were found to most often offer a bal-ance of risks and benefits, whereas the other daily newspapers in the samplehad more coverage of benefits outweighing the risks.

It was notable that these news stories were not typified as belonging to aspecific news genre, but rather were positioned across a range of them—including the hard news, science, health, educational, and business sections(for a discussion of science and newspaper typifications, see Allan 2002;Katz Rothman 1998; Nelkin 1987; Nelkin and Lindee 1995; Pellechia 1997).Despite the coverage featured in different sections, however, certain com-monalities were observed. For example, business coverage frequently men-tioned the political and social issues that may impinge on investments in thearea, while educational stories and science coverage often focused onnanotechnology as the next “big thing.” Moreover, and as one might expect,the placement of pertinent items in different sections corresponded with thejournalists involved in their production. General correspondents most oftenauthored articles, with only 13 percent (n = 43) of the sample written by sci-ence correspondents or editors, and just 4 percent (n = 13) authored by tech-nology correspondents or editors. News items in the broadsheets were morelikely to be authored by a science correspondent, while news items in thepopular newspapers were more likely to be written by political or nonspecial-ist news reporters (see Table 5).6

The single most prevalent news source referred to in our sample periodwas Michael Crichton’s novel Prey, with twenty-two references. Given thatcertain metaphors and images in news reporting can sometimes blur the dis-tinction between science fiction and science fact, the salience of referencesto this novel and its associated imagery of deadly nano-swarms is striking


TA

BL

E 5

Aut

hor

by N

ewsp

aper

Gen

eral

No

Aut

hor

Stat

edN

ewsp

aper

Scie

nce

Hea

lth

Env

iron

men

tTe

chno

logy

or O

ther

Aca

dem

icor

Des

igna

tion

The

Gua

rdia

n16

00

435

179

The

Tim

es11

00

335

610

The

Fin

anci

al T

imes

26

01

305

3T

he I

ndep

ende

nt2

10

421

44

The

Dai

ly T

eleg

raph

110

00

113

1T

he M

irro

r0

10

013

04

The

Sun

day

Tim

es0

00

012

32

The

Dai

ly M

ail

11

00

60

2T

he O

bser

ver

00

01

70

2T

he D

aily

Exp

ress

00

10

60

1T

he M

ail o

n Su

nday

00

00

41

1T

he S

unda

y Te

legr

aph

00

00

41

0T

he S

unda

y E

xpre

ss0

00

05

00

The

Ind

epen

dent

on

Sund

ay0

00

03

01

The

Sun

00

00

10

2T

he S

tar

00

00

20

0T

he S

unda

y M

irro

r0

00

01

00

Tota

l (pe

rcen

tage

)43

(12)

9(3

)1(

0.5)

13(4

)19

6(5

7)40

(11.

5)42

(12)

214

(Petersen, Anderson, and Allan, forthcoming). There is every indication thatit has played an influential role in casting the interpretative frames throughwhich people relate to these debates (Larson, Nerlich, and Wallis 2005). Fol-lowing Crichton’s novel in prominence was the Royal Society and RoyalAcademy of Engineering study, which was cited by sixteen of the newspaperarticles (see The Royal Society 2004).7

Regarding the most prominent stakeholders identified in the coverage, ourresults suggest that scientists gained considerable visibility. Indeed, scien-tists, both academic and commercially based, were the most frequentlyquoted or cited sources across the entire sample of articles, and also morelikely to be the first or second source referred to in the items. As Table 6 dem-onstrates, politicians or governmental representatives also ranked highly,while spokespersons of groups like the ETC Group, Greenpeace, or theRoyal Society were relatively uncommon.

Discussion and Conclusions

In summary, the articles examined over the sample period convey consid-erable news interest in the scientific aspects of nanotechnologies, antici-pating a range of nanotech applications in different fields. Yet the bulk ofcoverage is still confined, in the main, to a relatively small number of elitenewspapers, exhibiting an uneven spread of different frames over the period.These newspapers provide differing emphases that reflect a number of fac-tors, including the organization of news beats, target readerships, and politi-cal slants. For example, the Financial Times covered nanotech principally asa business story, while The Guardian highlighted scientific developments,science fiction, and social implications. Looking across all the coverage in


TABLE 6Quoted or Cited Sources by Newspapers

FrequencyStakeholder (Percentage)

Scientist (university- and industrially based) 173 (39)Politician or governmental representative (including European Union) 94 (21)Business, financial, or commercial experts 78 (17)Academics or other experts (not natural scientists) 50 (11)Spokespersons of stakeholder groups (for example, The Royal Society,

ETC Group) 41 (9)Other (for example, medical experts, religious leaders, patients) 13 (3)Total 449 (100)

the sample period, the possible benefits to be derived from nanotechnologyreceive more extensive coverage than do possible risks. However, these arti-cles also highlight a considerable degree of uncertainty about the precisenature of nanotechnologies, and the associated difficulties in expressingthem in a language suitable for newspaper readers (hence, in part, the re-course to terms and imagery from science fiction). As might be expected,such definitional ambiguities gradually appeared to be clarified, at least tosome extent, as the coverage unfolded. Interestingly, our data indicate thatthe prominence given to Prince Charles’s purported comments seems to havebeen the principal catalyst for further news interest in nanotechnologies; theinvolvement of a celebrity clearly gave the topic enhanced newsworthiness(see Corbett and Mori 1999; Turner 2004). It also provided the opportunityfor proponents of nanotechnologies, particularly scientists and politicians, tovoice their views in support of nanotechnologies in the following months,and thereby potentially help shape the parameters of subsequent debate.

This article’s evidence shows that the initial framing of nanotechnologiesin the UK was dominated by Prince Charles’s comments about the “greygoo” (i.e., dystopian) scenario, and yet the tone of the newspaper coveragewas largely positive in its orientation. The article suggests that the involve-ment of a celebrity played a crucial role in enhancing the newsworthiness ofthe issues and influencing their subsequent framing in the newspaper press,which gave particular prominence to science fiction frames. We believe it isreasonable to suggest that the Prince’s intervention—despite the questionsraised about the relative credibility of his truth-claims—provided a conve-nient news “peg” or “angle” for journalists. Convenient, that is, in the sensethat it enabled them to secure a basis whereby a scientific issue could be justi-fied as being of sufficient newsworthiness to warrant the attention of thepress, and therefore, in turn, the interest of the general public.

More specifically, our study suggests that the newspaper coverage tendedto simplify and individualize complex scientific debates by aligning newssources in a manner that accentuated their differing positions. In the courseof constructing a debate amongst interested stakeholders, some journalistsclearly sought to heighten a sense of the relative “news value” of nanotech-nology by underscoring the degree of conflict amongst the differing perspec-tives. The Prince’s association (fairly or otherwise) with “grey goo” fearsallowed for a degree of journalistic balance to be struck with those of advo-cates, namely those who sought to privilege the perceived benefits to begained in economic and scientific terms. This reflects the general journal-istic tendency to present “two sides of a story” in order to make a reportappear balanced and impartial (see Allan, Adam, and Carter 2000; Anderson1997).


Similarly worthy of close attention in this context, according to our find-ings, is the relative prominence of the science fiction frame throughout theentire sample period, though especially during the period of the extensivereporting of Prince Charles’s comments. It stands to reason, we would sug-gest, that efforts to move public engagement “upstream” will need to devotegreater attention to how (and why) journalists draw upon fictional images,and the possible ways this merging of fact with fiction may be influencing theprocess of issue formation.

A careful examination of the news frames operating in news coverage, ourstudy suggests, can contribute to furthering an understanding of how certaindefinitions of nanotechnology are legitimated over others. We hope to castfurther light on processes of news production in the next phase of our study,which involves in-depth interviews with scientists, journalists, and editors.News frames are likely to offer a practicable resource for journalists seek-ing to process “the facts of the matter” in a manner consistent with theirperceptions of the newspaper’s readership, including what can be assumedto constitute public knowledge about the science involved. This seemingly“common sensical” process by which journalists adjudicate between com-peting truth-claims, we would argue, is likely to have a profound influenceupon what is seen to count as the reality of nanotechnology on the pages of anewspaper.

Notes

1. This article draws on the findings of the first stage of a project exploring the productionand portrayal of news on nanotechnologies in the British press. The project, which is funded bythe ESRC (RES–000–22–0596), involves an analysis of coverage of news articles onbionanotechnology over a fifteen-month period, followed by a survey and in-depth interviewswith scientists who are quoted or cited in stories along with author journalists and their editors, aswell as a small sample of scientists who are not cited or quoted.

2. Briefly, Small Talk is intended to provide coherence to discussions of nanotechnologybe-tween scientists, the public, and policymakers in the UK. It is funded by COPUS, the Committeeon the Public Understanding of Science.

3. All the principal national daily and Sunday newspapers in the UK were included in thesample. Unfortunately, The Financial Times was not available through either of these archive ser-vices and was searched using the newspaper’s subscription facility, which provided full articles.

4. Prior to Prince Charles publishing an article on the dangers of GM food in The Daily Mailon June 1, 1999, he consulted with his advisors (including close friend, and former director ofFriends of the Earth, Jonathan Porritt) through a working dinner at Highgrove (Marks 1999;Prince Charles 1999). It appears that Porritt again played a significant role in Prince Charles’s in-tervention into the debate about nanotechnologies in 2003 (Highfield 2003).

5. The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday are right-wing, midmarket newspapers with arelatively high number of female readers (Newspaper Marketing Agency 2005). They have often


taken on a campaigning role and sparked off public debates—notably the “Save our Seals” cam-paign in the 1980s and the more recent campaign over “Frankenstein foods” in the late 1990s(Anderson 1997; Cook 2004). In June 1999 The Daily Mail launched a “Daily Mail CampaignGenetic Food Watch”; The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday took a strong anti-GM stance andreferred to GM foods as “frankenfoods” or “frankenstein foods.”

6. Similarly, during the crucial first two days when the GM story broke, it was found that nonews articles were authored by science journalists and 45 percent of stories were written by polit-ical journalists. This was especially evident in the popular press, which took on a campaigningstance and did not define it as a “science/technology” issue. Indeed, science correspondentsnever contributed over 15 percent of the total news coverage at any stage during the period of thecontroversy (POST 2000).

7. The Royal Society is the UK’s national scientific academy and it is influential in sciencepolicy at the national and international level. It has recently advised the UK government onnanotechnology.

References

Allan, S. 2002. Media, risk and science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Allan, S., B. Adam, and C. Carter, eds. 2000. Environmental risks and the media. London and

New York: Routledge.Anderson, A. 1997. Media, culture and the environment. London: UCL Press.Anderson, A., S. Allan, A. Petersen, and C. Wilkinson. 2005. Textual representations of

nanotechnology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for theAdvancement of Science (AAAS), February 17–21, Washington, D.C.

Conrad, P., and S. Markens. 2001. Constructing the “gay gene” in the news: Optimism and skep-ticism in the U.S. and British press. Health 5(3): 373–400.

Cook, G. 2004. Genetically modified language. London: Routledge.Corbett, J. B., and M. Mori. 1999. Medicine, media, and celebrities: News coverage of breast

cancer, 1960–1995. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 76(2): 229–49.Faber, B. 2005. Popularizing nanoscience: The public rhetoric of nanotechnology, 1986–1999.

Available from http://www.people.clarkson.edu/~faber/pubs/nano.tech.tcq.3.0.doc.Friedman, S., and B. Egolf. 2005. Nanotechnology in the U.S. and British mass media. Paper pre-

sented at the International Association for Science, Technology and Society Meeting, Febru-ary 11, Baltimore, MD.

Gaskell, G., T. Ten Eyck, J. Jackson, and G. Veltri. 2005. Imagining nanotechnology: Culturalsupport for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understandingof Science 14:81–90.

Gerard, J. 2003. Charles gets in a wee tizz over nanotechnology. The Sunday Times. April 27, 17.Gitlin, T. 1980. The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new

left. Berkeley: University of California Press.Gorss, J., and B. Lewenstein. 2005. The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the

American press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the International Communication Associa-tion Conference, May 27.

Hall, S., C. Critcher, T. Jefferson, J. Clarke, and B. Roberts. 1978. Policing the crisis: Mugging,the state, and law and order. London: Macmillan.

Hansen, A., S. Cottle, R. Negrine, and C. Newbold. 1998. Mass communication research meth-ods. London: Macmillan.


Highfield, R. 2003. Small cause for concern. The Spectator. June 14.Hijmans, E., A. Pleijter, and F. Wester. 2003. Covering scientific research in Dutch newspapers.

Science Communication 25(2): 153–176.Huijer, M. 2003. Reconsidering democracy: History of the Human Genome Project. Science

Communication 24(4): 479–502.Katz Rothman, B. 1998. Genetic maps and human imaginations. New York: W. W. Norton.Larson, B. M. H., B. Nerlich, and P. Wallis. 2005. Metaphors and biorisks: The war on infectious

diseases and invasive species. Science Communication 26(3): 243–268.Loening, U. 2003. Challenges of the new technologies. The Times. May 7, p. 19.Marks, K. 1999. Why prince went tabloid on GM food. The Independent. June 2.Miller, M., and B. P. Riechert. 2000. Interest group strategies and journalistic norms: News

media framing of environmental issues. In Environmental risks and the media, edited byS. Allan, B. Adam, and C. Carter, 45–54. London: Routledge.

Nelkin, D. 1987. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W. H.Freeman and Company.

Nelkin, D., and M. S. Lindee. 1995. The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York:W. H. Freeman and Company.

Newspaper Marketing Agency. 2005. Newspaper crib sheets. Retrieved from http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures.

Nisbet, M. C., and B. V. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American media: The policyprocess and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication 23(4): 359–391.

Nisbet, M., D. Brossard, and A. Kroepsch. 2003. Framing science: The stem cell controversy inthe age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8(2): 36–70.

Oliver, J. 2003a. Charles: “Grey goo” threat to the world. The Mail on Sunday. April 27, p. 1.Oliver, J. 2003b. Nightmare of the grey goo. The Mail on Sunday. April 27, p. 8.Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). 2000. The great GM food debate: A

survey of media coverage in the first half of 1999. Available from http://www.parliament.uk/post/report138.pdf.

Pellechia, M. G. 1997. Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three U.S. newspapers.Public Understanding of Science 6(1): 49–68.

Petersen, A. 2002. Replicating our bodies, losing our selves: News media portrayals of humancloning in the wake of Dolly. Body and Society 8(4): 71–90.

Petersen, A., A. Anderson, and S. Allan. Forthcoming. Science fiction/science fact: Medicalgenetics in news stories. New Genetics and Society.

Pierce, A. 2003. Prince launches crusade against “grey goo science.” The Times. April 28, p. 9.Porritt, J. 2003. Who will control the nanobots? The Mail on Sunday. April 27, p. 24.Priest, S. H. 1994. Structuring public debate on biotechnology: Media frames and public re-

sponse. Science Communication 16(2): 166–79.Prince Charles. 1999. My 10 fears for GM food. The Daily Mail. June 1.Radford, T. 2003. Brave new world or miniature menace? Why Charles fears grey goo nightmare.

The Guardian. April 29, p. 3.Roco, M., and W. S. Bainbridge. 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotech-

nology. National Science Foundation. Available from http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/.

Small Talk. 2005. Small Talk—discussing nanotechnologies. Available from http://www.smalltalk.org.uk/page1g.html.

Smith, R. 2003. Grey goo science used in skin cream. The Daily Mirror. May 26, p. 22.


Stephens, L. F. 2004. News media frames of developments in nanoscience and nanotechnology:A global perspective. Unpublished Paper. School of Journalism and Mass Communications,University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, August 1.

Stephens, L. F. 2005. News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers.Science Communication 27(2): 175-199.

Tanner, A. H. 2004. Agenda building, source selection, and health news at local television sta-tions. Science Communication 25(4): 350–363.

The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotech-nologies: Opportunities and uncertainties, 1–116. London: The Royal Society.

Treder, M. 2004. Bridges to safety, and bridges to progress. Center for Responsible Nano-technology. Available from http://crnano.org/Bridges.htm.

Turner, G. 2004. Understanding celebrity. London: Sage.Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move

upstream. London: Demos.

ALISON ANDERSON is Principal Lecturer in Sociology in the School of Sociology, Poli-tics and Law at the University of Plymouth. She is author of Media, Culture and the Envi-ronment (University College London and Rutgers University Press, 1997) and coeditorof The Changing Consumer (Routledge, 2002). Recent articles on journalistic portrayalsof environmental issues, genetics, and war have appeared in Sociological ResearchOnline, Knowledge Technology & Society, and New Genetics & Society.

STUART ALLAN is Reader in the School of Cultural Studies at the University of the Westof England, Bristol. He is the author of News Culture (Open University Press, 1999, sec-ond edition, 2004) and Media, Risk and Science (Open University Press, 2002). His ed-ited collections include Environmental Risks and the Media (Routledge, 2000), and Jour-nalism: Critical Issues (Open University Press, 2005).

ALAN PETERSEN is Professor of Sociology in the School of Sociology, Politics and Lawat the University of Plymouth. His research interests span the fields of the sociology ofhealth and illness, the mediation of new biotechnologies, sociology of the new genetics,and gender studies. His recent books include The New Genetics and the Public’s Health(Routledge, 2002, with Robin Bunton), Engendering Emotions (Palgrave Macmillan,2004), and Genetic Governance: Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era (Routledge,2005, edited with Robin Bunton).

CLARE WILKINSON is a research fellow in the School of Sociology, Politics and Law atthe University of Plymouth. She was awarded her doctorate in 2005. Her thesis examinedrelationships between experts, the media, and publics, contextualized by new geneticissues.


the framing of nanotechnologies in the british newspaper...

Documents