Minna Kanerva
UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University
Tentative governance in emerging science and technology
Enschede, October 29, 2010
Background (I)
 Some prior studies in the North (US, Canada,
UK, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Denmark,
Spain)
 Weaver et al. (2009) Fitzgerald (2005), Laing (2005),
Stephens (2005), Anderson et al. (2005), Te Kulve
(2006), Zimmer et al. (2008), Kjolberg (2009), Schmidt
Kjaergaard (2008), Veltri & Crescentini (2010)
 Brief results


Nano S&T benefits outweigh risks in the newspaper stories
Risk topics are generally dealt with in only a minority of the
articles (UK maybe an exception)
 The focus has been on risks vs. benefits
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
2
Background (II)
 Why Global South chosen here?
 Potentially even greater benefits than in the
Global North
 More potential risks
 Media discourse mostly not yet explored (one
exception is Brazil in Invernizzi, 2009), unlike in
the North, so interesting to see what’s there
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
3
Methodology - Overview
 Total of 96 online newspaper stories about nano S&T,
between 2000 and early 2009, analysed from (one
newspaper per country):




India (The Hindu)
South Africa (The Star)
Kenya (The Daily Nation)
Hong Kong (South China Morning Post)
 Methods
 Discourse analysis, with the help of software (Atlas.ti)
 Focus is not so much on the risk-benefit axis, but instead on:



Risk actions, using a typology
Complexity
Constructions of nano S&T
 Comparison between North and South - between other studies and
this study
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
4
Methodology - Risk action typology
Risk actions
Basic
Negative
Advanced
Neutral
Positive
Negative
Appraising
Ignoring
Appraising
(passive)
(passive)
(passive)
Ignoring
Avoiding
Avoiding
(active)
(passive)
(active)
Accepting
Positive
Attenuating
Amplifying
Glorifying
Identifying
Taking
Appraising
(uninformed)
(active)
Assessing
Appraising
(active)
Taking
(informed)
Communicating
Controlling
Reducing
Eliminating
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
5
Some examples…
Amplifying
Chilling implications; threaten the existence of mankind; vast
potential for environmental damage (SCMP)
Ignoring
(active)
Affect our lungs? That’s a laugh; after nanotreatment, the [toys] will
promise good hygiene and be easy to clean (SCMP)
Accepting
We already enjoy too many benefits from nanotechnology to be able
to straightforwardly stop now (Star)
Avoiding
(active)
We have managed perfectly well so far without nanotechnology, so
why take the chance? (Star)
Identifying
Let us by all means look for obvious dangers at the outset; they
advocate use of neural networks (...) as a strategy to classify nano
materials into safe and unsafe (toxic) categories (Hindu)
Taking
(informed)
A popular science book (...) describes what could be the potential
dangers of (...) nanotechnology. But it states that it will be unrealistic
to deny the technology's benefits (Hindu)
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
6
Methodology – Complexity (I)
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
7
Methodology – Complexity (II)
 Complexity of discourse, not complexity of risk, but
 Certain risk actions may be encouraged by different
levels of complexity, e.g.
 Simple discourse, nano S&T is great -> ignore risk (passive)
 Simple discourse, nano S&T is dangerous -> avoid risk
 Complex discourse, nano S&T is ambiguous


-> assess risk -> potential public involvement in TA
-> ignore risk (active)
 Inspired by Dijk (2008) who quantified complexity by
counting attributes used to describe a technology
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
8
Results - Stories
 Different stories of what nano S&T means in
different country (or newspaper) contexts
 South Africa – helping the poor, the ill, and the
environment, practical vision, social implications
 India – new technology for everyone, but also helping
the poor, most importantly, a means to make India a
developed country, grand vision, social and economic
implications
 Hong Kong – new technology for everyone,
transforming the economy, economic implications
 Kenya – discussion in the media only starting, no clear
nano story yet
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
9
Results – Specific themes (I)
 South Africa (Star)
 ‘Visionary period’ (-> 2006) vs. ‘risk period’ (2007 ->)
 Detailed descriptions of related science (what’s special
about nano?) and of how certain applications work
 Importance of gold to South Africa, also in terms of
nano S&T
September 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
10
Results – Specific themes (II)
 India (Hindu)
 Importance of education
 Spokespersons for nano S&T (former President Abdul
Kalam and nanoscientist C.N.R. Rao), similar to the UK
 Comparisons between nano S&T and other technologies
 Discourse on the social construction of technology as it
relates to nano S&T (but limited)
 Nano S&T sometimes presented as an old technology or
as something natural, i.e. something where scientists are
trying to mimic nature
September 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
11
Results – Specific themes (III)
 Hong Kong (SCMP)
 Attraction to cleanliness, importance of electronic
gadgets
 Political environment (Hong Kong vs. mainland China)
 Hong Kong scientists seen as pioneers in nano S&T
 Nano S&T described as non-risky, except for molecular
manufacturing, and alternately as something
extraordinary (general level), or as something useful
(specific applications)
September 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
12
Results – Risk actions (I)
 Most stories ignoring risks
 Still, a range of a dozen different risk actions can
be found
 South Africa might be talking more about nano
risks than the other countries: e.g. passive
ignoring of nano risks apparent in only 19% of
SA articles, compared with 50% of Indian
articles
 Including risk governance actions (see typology)
in the stories varies from country to country, or
newspaper to newspaper
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
13
Results – Risk actions (II)
South Africa (the Star)
India (the Hindu)
N/A
10%
Other risk
actions
45%
October 2010
Risk
governance
45%
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
Other
risk
actions
50%
N/A
29%
Risk
governance
21%
14
Results – Complexity (I)
 For the studies in the North, complexity is not analysed as
such, but, for example:
 Risk/benefit discussions, which add to complexity, range from
1 to 21% of articles between countries and time periods
 For the newspapers studied in the South:
 For the Indian newspaper, discourse is by far the least
complex
 For Hong Kong and South Africa, discourse is more or less
equal in complexity, but not really complex
 Overall, complexity increases over time, except for South
Africa
September 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
15
Results – Complexity (II)
Complexity of nano S&T articles
(over time and on average),
overall assessment
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Hong Kong SCMP
October 2010
South Africa Star
India - Hindu
time sample
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
India - Hindu
risk sample
16
Results - Conclusions
 North and South not that different overall,
in that risks outweigh benefits in nearly all
articles, but each country/newspaper would
seem to have its own ‘nano story’
 Research could be done at country level, and
globally, to get a more interesting picture
 Risk action and complexity analyses worked
fairly well – could apply to discourses on
other risk issues as well (e.g. climate
change)
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
17
References












Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A. and Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of nanotechnologies in the British
newspaper press. Science Communication, 27(2), 200-220
Dijk, M. (2008). Shifting frames on the car market: ICE-regime versus the EV & HEV niche (1990-2005). ICIS
Fitzgerald, S. (2005). Constructing risk: Media coverage of nanotechnology. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 11
Invernizzi, N. (2009). Visions on nanotechnology in Brazilian media. Presentation at the 2009 Annual Meeting of
the Society for Social Studies of Science, Washington, DC, October 28-31
Kjolberg, K.L. (2009). Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers – Implications for public
participation. Nanoethics, 3, 61-72
Laing, A. (2005). A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. Cormex
Research
Schmidt Kjaergaard, R. (2008). Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to
2006. Public Understanding of Science (published online 17 November)
Stephens, L.F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Science
Communication, 27(2), 175-199
te Kulve, H. (2006). Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Science as
Culture, 15(4), 367-382
Veltri, G.A. and Crescentini, A. (2010). ¡Viva la Nano Revolucion!: Nanotechnology in the Spanish National Press.
Presentation at the EASST 2010 conference in Trento, Italy, September 1-4
Weaver, D.A., Lively, E. and Bimber, B. (2009). Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological
progress, risk, and regulation. Science Communication, 31(2), 139-166
Zimmer, R., Hertel, R. and Bol, G.-F. (2008). Risikowahrnehmung beim Thema Nanotechnologie – Analyse der
Medienberichterstattung. BfR-Wissenschaft 07/2008. Berlin: Bundesinstitut fur Risikobewertung.
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
18
Thank you for listening!
Contact: m.kanerva@maastrichtuniversity.nl
October 2010
Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT
19