Little by Little: Expansions of Nan

Little by Little: Expansions of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies

Little by Little: Expansions of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies edited by

Harro van Lente University of Utrecht

Christopher Coenen

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Torsten Fleischer


Kornelia Konrad University of Twente

Colin Milburn

University of California, Davis

Francois Thoreau University of Liège

Torben B. Zülsdorf


Prof. Dr. ir. Harro van Lente University of Utrecht Willem C. Van Unnik Building / Office 1017 Heidelberglaan 2 3584 CS Utrecht The Netherlands E-Mail: [email protected]

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie. Detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at https://portal.d-nb.de.

Publisher Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA GmbH P.O. Box 10 33 05 69023 Heidelberg Germany Tel.: 0049 (0)6221 21881 Fax: 0049 (0)6221 167355 [email protected] www.aka-verlag.com

Distribution Herold Auslieferung und Service GmbH Raiffeisenallee 10 82041 Oberhaching (München) Germany Fax: 0049 (0)89 6138 7120 [email protected]

© 2012, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA GmbH, Heidelberg All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission from the publisher. Cover Design: Ingrid Maria Spakler, Heidelberg Printer: cpi buchbücher.de GmbH, Birkach Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-89838-674-6 (AKA) ISBN 978-1-61499-148-9 (IOS Press)

Preface In November 2011, the Centers for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) and at the University of California, Santa Barbara (CNSUCSB) collaborated to host the third annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies. S.NET, as it is known, is a young, international professional society created, in part, as a legacy of a Nanotechnology-in-Society Network instituted by the U.S. National Science Foundation. The meeting was hosted physically in Tempe, AZ by CNS-ASU and virtually by CNS-UCSB (http://www.cns. ucsb.edu/snet2011). It drew more than two hundred registrants from more than twenty countries. Scholars, students, and professionals participated in more than forty-five panels and other activities, such as walking tours of Tempe and Phoenix, short theatrical performances, a poster session with videos and tabletop demonstrations, and student-organized social activities. The conference provided ample evidence of a flourishing international community of scholars dedicated to describing, theorizing, and debating the societal aspects of new and emerging technologies—including not only nanotechnology, but also synthetic biology, geoengineering, DIY manufacturing, and more. This volume is the third in a series of edited volumes featuring selected material from the S.NET meetings. The editorial team reflects the hybrid interdisciplinarity and international composition of the young society, and also the encouraging investment in this new area of scholarship by a rising generations of emerging technology scholars. The chapters in this book capture a range of key discussions and issues raised by participants in S.NET 2011; additional collections anticipated in the journals Review of Policy Research, NanoEthics, and Nanotechnology Law and Business further extend the published record of the emerging debate on emergent techno-societal issues. While it is nice to see the scholarship presented at S.NET 2011 appearing in print, and gratifying to have this third edited volume to accompany the other two, it is truly inspiring to be able to continue to showcase new, high-quality research by scholars who are coalescing into a community. David H. Guston Tempe, AZ Barbara Herr Harthorn Santa Barbara, CA

Contents Preface

v David Guston and Barbara Harthorn

Expansions of Nanotechnology Harro van Lente, Christopher Coenen, Torsten Fleischer, Kornelia Konrad, Lotte Krabbenborg, Colin Milburn, François Thoreau, and Torben Z. Zülsdorf

1

Part I: Expanding Meanings Affordances of Nanoscale Images Arie Rip and Martin Ruivenkamp Attitudinal Communities and the Interpretation of Nanotechnology News: Frames, Schemas, and Attitudes as Predictors of Reader Reactions Susanna Priest and Ted Greenhalgh Undone Science and Science Un-done at Nanotechnology’s Periphery Frederick Klaessig Using Large-scale Databases to Understand the Trajectories of Emerging Technologies Jan Youtie, Alan Porter, Kevin Boyack, Jose Lobo, Richard Klavans, Ismael Rafols, and Philip Shapira

9

23 43

55

Part II: Expanding Publics Using Theatre and Film to Engage the Public in Nanotechnology Stephanie Long and Rae Ostman Clusters of Informal Science Education Projects: From Public Understanding of Science to Public Engagement with Science Elizabeth Kunz Kollmann, Larry Bell, Marta Beyer, and Stephanie Iacovelli

59

65

viii

How Do We Gain the Interest of People Who Are Uninterested in Science and Technology? Craig Cormick

77

Nanotechnology for Democracy versus Democratization of Nanotech: An Ableism Analysis Gregor Wolbring

89

Part III: Expanding Innovations México–U.S. Collaboration in MEMS/NEMS Guillermo Foladori, Edgar Záyago Lau, Remberto Sandóval, Richard Appelbaum, and Rachel Parker Developing a Methodology for Rapid Response Social Science Research Using Leading-Edge Information Technology in the Context of ELSI Research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) W. Christopher Lenhardt, Amy Wolfe, Dave Bjornstad, and Barry Shumpert Does Solar Energy Need a New Innovation Model? The Case of Germany Christopher Newfield

107

125

135

Part IV: Expanding Responsibilities Governing Nanotechnologies in Europe: Human Rights, Soft Law, and Corporate Social Responsibility Elena Pariotti and Daniele Ruggiu A Trans-Atlantic Conversation on Responsible Innovation and Responsible Governance Sally Randles, Jan Youtie, David Guston, Barbara Harthorn, Chris Newfield, Philip Shapira, Fern Wickson, Arie Rip, René Von Schomberg, and Nick Pidgeon

157

169

Crossover Research: Exploring a Collaborative Mode of Integration Rune Nydal, Sophia Efstathiou, and Astrid Laegreid

181

Union Perspectives on the Risks and Implications of Nanotechnology Noela Invernizzi

195

Contributors

217

Expansions of Nanotechnology Harro VAN LENTEa, Christopher COENENb, Torsten FLEISCHERb, Kornelia KONRADc, Lotte KRABBENBORGd, Colin MILBURNe, François THOREAUf, and Torben B. ZÜLSDORFb a University of Utrecht, Netherlands b Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany c University of Twente, Netherlands d University of Groningen, Netherlands e University of California, Davis, USA f University of Liège, Belgium Introduction Little by little, nanotechnology has emerged amid enormous aspirations for new materials and fantastic promises of manipulating our world “atom by atom.” While these grand visions continue to capture the imaginations of various audiences—and continue to be contested, as well—nanotechnology has developed into more than that. During the last two decades, many research programs and industrial R&D expenditures have resulted in actual products and tangible innovations. Nanotechnology, it seems, is expanding. But what does it mean to say that nanotechnology is expanding? A standard view of technological expansion involves the “diffusion” of innovations. The famous 1962 study by Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, was rooted in the tradition of mass communication studies. It introduced how innovations spread according to logistic functions, that is to say, S-curves. It explained these patterns with an analysis of “early adopters,” “majorities,” and “laggards,” tracing the ingredients that account for the decision of buyers whether or not to adopt the innovation. While Rogers’s framework is a landmark in the study of technological change, it also has been frequently criticized, for instance, for taking the innovation as a static element, not changing during the S-curve, and for assuming a one-way trickling down of innovations to users. Generations of STS researchers have argued persistently against these assumptions (for example, see Geroski 2000, Metcalfe 1997). Yet, fifty years later, it appears that such terms are pervasive and have found their way into the vocabularies of journalists and policymakers. Another famous account of technological expansion was elaborated by Thomas Hughes in Networks of Power, a study that focused on Thomas Edison and his efforts to build an electricity grid. Here, the expansion of a technological system seemed to be determined largely by the interplay of the momentum and reverse salients of the system (Hughes 1983). However, nanotechnology is neither a singular innovation, nor a specific system. The aforementioned accounts can therefore point to relevant aspects of processes of expansion, such as changes among the actors involved throughout the process, but other issues are likely to emerge, for instance, changes in the meaning and the substance of what is expanding. Nanotechnology promises to expand as an “enabling technology,” that is, via other technologies and existing industrial R&D (Youtie et al.

2

Expansions of Nanotechnology

2008). Moreover, in considering what is expanding, the epitheton of “nano” continues to create confusion. What counts as nanoscience or nanotechnology seems to differ according to various discussions of promises, anticipated markets, or concerns about risk. In particular, one can often observe a dual repertoire about the revolutionary character of nanoscience and nanotechnology: when underpinning promises or visions, “nano” is attached to a very extensive set of research and development activities; when linked to risks, the technologies at stake are not seen as very revolutionary (Rip 2006). Yet, while there is debate about what should count as nanotechnology, the unifying characteristic seems to be the persistence of great expectations (Selin 2007). Nanotechnology is a rhetorical entity in the first place, and it is now being filled in by actual research and development (Van Lente and Rip 1998, Milburn 2008). So, nano expands—but in another way than the standard idea of diffusion. This volume testifies to various expansions of nanotechnology and other emerging technologies, some resonating with the more “classical” approaches to expansion mentioned before, but others not. For instance, there is geographical expansion. We have contributions from other continents than North America and Europe, testifying to the global expansion of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Also, the chapters show expansion from nanoscience to innovation. For a long time, nanotechnology was predominantly an issue of research (so, some argued that one should talk about nanoscience, instead of nanotechnology), but increasingly it has been turning into products. We also see expansions of the publics and audiences involved with nanotechnology, in addition to expansions of the cultural meanings attributed to nanotechnology. Likewise, we note the emergence of a wider set of questions, leading to and feeding into issues of policy and governance—articulated in terms much broader than regulation alone—as well as moves towards responsible innovation. Throughout the contributions to this volume, we witness the deployment of various meanings of this notion of expansion. This volume testifies to the ambition of broad and general reflections on nanoscience and emerging technologies. The chapters deal with the manifold ways in which nanoscience and other emerging technologies expand. We have ordered the chapters into four parts: expanding meanings, expanding publics, expanding innovations, and expanding responsibilities. We would like to stress that this volume does not aim at a comprehensive and fully systematic overview of relevant questions related to the expansion of nanotechnology, but it provides a snapshot of the broad range of issues that emerge alongside the expansion of nanotechnology we are currently observing.

Expanding Meanings The first section on expanding meanings explores how the word “nanotechnology” and its images disseminate in wider circles. It is no longer confined to a small community of engineers and policymakers. Rather, it spreads out in increasingly diverse communities, and it now concerns a broad array of actors. The volume starts with a study by Arie Rip and Martin Ruivenkamp about nanotechnology images, in particular, those that have become iconic and ubiquitous. This chapter poses the question: what images “do” as they circulate in the world of nanotechnology, and in society at large? A wellknown example is the “nanolouse” image of a nanorobot treating blood cells. While images, in a basic sense, are visual representations, it is not clear what they represent in the case of nanotechnology. Images raise epistemological questions about what they


3

represent; to be sure, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist once referred to such overwhelming images as a carnival of “nanobaubles” (Laughlin 2005: 134). Rip and Ruivenkamp’s central interest is the notion of affordance, which they draw from design studies. Nano-images are consciously designed, including shapes and colors, and there has been criticism of the freedom nanoscientists allow themselves in their impressions. They also note that the images also enhance the general promise of nanotechnology. The image of the “nanolouse,” for instance, is used to signify nanotechnology and to mobilize financial support. The second chapter by Susanna Priest and Ted Greenhalgh studies the circulation of nanotechnology news and the way it is interpreted by the wider public. They study frames, schemas, and attitudes as predictors of reader reactions. They address four different applications (in electronics, food, medicine, and energy production, respectively) using four different “information order” frames (emphasizing social risk, physical risk, regulatory status, and benefits, respectively). Their results suggest that the current fixation on media framing as a determinant of reactions overlooks other important factors. Reader interpretations, or schemas, pre-existing attitudes toward science and technology in general, and toward authority in general, appear more important. The chapter by Frederick Klaessig investigates the perennial difficulties to define nanotechnology. His example is the discussion on environmental, safety and health (EHS) aspects of nano-silver. He uses the concept of “undone science,” introduced by Hess and colleagues. Klaessig also discusses an “old” and “new” material debate related to the U.S. EPA’s recent conditional approval for HeiQ 20 AGS, a nano-silver product. The conclusion is that EHS issues were once peripheral to nanotechnology, but are now considered central to the responsible development of nanotechnology products. Likewise, other issues have been deemphasized, thus becoming “un-done.” With the latter, data that were once valid information became invisible, but now return as terminology and research priorities shift. This chapter thus shows how meanings shift in definitions. The fourth chapter by Jan Youtie, Alan Porter, Kevin Boyack, Jose Lobo, Richard Klavans, Ismael Raforls and Philip Shapira presents the results of a roundtable held at the S.NET 2011 conference about large-scale publication and patent databases. These databases represent an information source that allows for analysis of emerging technologies over time. During the roundtable, issues of definition were discussed, as well as the general lack of information about financial investments, and difficulties in working with unstructured text. The authors conclude that the major challenge is to link important databases. Large-scale databases can be very helpful in getting unobtrusive, scale-based perspectives on an emerging technology. At the same time, there is scope for improvement in conceptual clarity, missing information, messy and unstructured information, and linkages between datasets to enable researchers to better understand the development of emerging technologies.

Expanding Publics Nanotechnology is not just stuff for scientists, engineers and policymakers. Due to increasing pressures to include stakeholders and society at large, the public for nanotechnology expands as well. In the U.K., for instance, the upstream engagement projects of Demos and others have led to several experiments to include the public. Workshops organized at the Center for Nanotechnology and Society in the USA (in

4


Arizona and California) and of NanoNed in the Netherlands are other examples. Several chapters in this volume account for the various routes in which this expansion is taking place. In their chapter, Stephanie Long and Rae Ostman discuss the possibilities of theater to allow a broader public to reflect on nanotechnology. In general, theater has the power to make complex societal issues and scientific content relevant and compelling, engaging the public in topics that might otherwise seem intimidating or uninteresting. Their chapter discusses the work of the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) to develop, evaluate, and implement innovative dramatic and comedic programming to diverse public audiences. NISE Net theater performances and films have been held in museums and schools, aimed at sparking thoughtful conversations about the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology. The next chapter by Elizabeth Kunz Kollmann, Larry Bell, Marta Beyer and Stephanie Iacovelli discusses the topic of “Public Engagement with Science in Informal Learning Environments.” They analyze the shift in informal science education (ISE) to go beyond the “public understanding of science” paradigm and to explore “public engagement with science.” The authors argue that when making decisions about science and technology issues, it is important to involve not just expert voices but also public viewpoints. This chapter seeks to understand the spread of informal science education projects along this continuum and uncover groupings through the creation of a project catalog. The chapter by Craig Cormick is concerned with the question of how to ensure that public participation in science and technology debates represents the breadth of public opinion. The challenge is how to gain the interest of people who are uninterested in science and technology. Through a series of discussions with recruited members of the Australian population who profess to being disinterested in science, Cormick sought to firstly discover more about their attitudes and values towards science and technology. He also tried to discover if there were different framings that would increase their interest in science and technology, and therefore increase the likelihood of them participating in engagement exercises and having their voices heard. Cormick concludes that uninterested citizens can become interested in science discussions, provided either that the discussions are not initially framed as being about science and technology, or that the discussions are reframed according to particular personal interests. The advice, therefore, is to use different communication, education and engagement strategies to reach different groups in public participation exercises. Gregor Wolbring discusses the question of “Nanotechnology for Democracy versus Democratization of Nanotech.” Given the rapid pace of development in nanotechnology products and processes, new challenges are introduced to various segments of society. It also influences how we relate to each other, locally and globally. Wolbring’s argument is that our attitude to democracy is one aspect of how we relate to each other on the individual and societal level. Many countries define themselves as democracies. Various abilities are seen as essential for a functioning democracy, for democratic processes, and for active citizenship. It is often argued that the governance of science and technology should be democratized by including stakeholders and the public right at the beginning of innovation processes. Wolbring’s focus, however, is on the question of how nanotechnology can and should support democracy, democratic processes, and active citizenship. His chapter performs an anticipatory analysis with regard to potential impacts on abilities seen as essential for democratic processes and active citizenship.


5

Expanding Innovations An increasing number of products and processes now use ingredients or techniques that, in some way or another, are related to advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology. The expansion of nanoscience into the world of innovations has been accompanied both with both enthusiasm about new opportunities and new problems. In their chapter Guillermo Foladori, Edgar Záyago Lau, Remberto Sandóval, Richard Appelbaum and Rachel Parker explore binational cooperation between Mexico and the U.S. regarding MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) and NEMS (nanoelectromechanical systems). While this cooperation is relatively recent—it started in the 2000s—its development illustrates at least two important issues. First, there is a strong confluence between military and civilian interests in this area. This common purpose has both facilitated and guided human resource training, as well as specialization within the institutions involved. Second, it shows that despite having little historical experience in such high-tech areas, Mexican institutions are nonetheless able to effectively develop new technologies, as long as the political will is present. However, the strong Mexico-U.S. ties that have been developed, with Mexico’s efforts seemingly shaped either by the needs of foreign transnational corporations or the U.S. military, calls for further examination of how effectively this vital high-tech area will develop in terms of Mexico’s own economic growth aspirations. Clearly, the rise of nanoscience and emerging technologies raises new social research questions. In their chapter, Christopher Lenhardt, Amy Wolfe, David Bjornstad and Barry Shumpert consider how the Internet and social media may be used for new, innovative approaches to social science research. They present a review of existing literature about uses of the Internet to further social science research, concluding that many of the methodological issues that may be associated with Internet-based research are similar to more traditional social science research approaches. The authors discuss how a computer-mediated environment may enable rapid inquiry and assessment of complex, fast-changing research questions. The application of this approach is intended for a Department of Energy-sponsored (DOE) Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) activity at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) that seeks to understand societal responses to emerging technologies, including nanotechnology, in the context of the research and development life-cycle. In the next chapter, Christopher Newfield reflects on the ways in which—beyond specific policy incentives—German culture has contributed to the exceptional success of solar innovation in Germany. He also explores the seemingly paradoxical situation that, even while solar markets are expanding, the German solar industry is shrinking. He concludes that a different innovation model and policy approach may be necessary, in order to ensure the further development of technology that fully exploits solar energy’s sustainable potential.

Expanding Responsibilities New developments in nanotechnology have also given rise to a host of regulatory and governance issues. As new terrains are being explored and exploited, established regulatory frames have to be adapted or reinvented. In their chapter, Elena Pariotti and Daniele Ruggiu critically examine how nanotechnologies can be governed in Europe. They start from a rights-oriented perspective and consider the interplay of hard legal

6


legislation, a wide range of soft law instruments, and different types of actors. They also consider the presence of ethical committees and ethical advice, which raises questions about the correct relationships between legal and ethical normativity within the governance of emerging technologies. An “ethicisation of technologies” is looming, they argue, that is, the tendency to exceed in framing the governance of technologies in ethical terms, and the risk of the substitution of law with ethics. Soft law, they argue, should not be confused with ethics. In the next chapter, Sally Randles and her co-authors present the results of a roundtable held at the 2011 S.NET conference with academics and policymakers from Europe and the U.S. This transatlantic conversation was designed to stimulate considerations of recent regulatory decisions related to responsible innovation and governance. While the statements and subsequent discussion clearly showed a variety of perspectives, partly related to the diversity of disciplinary backgrounds, a number of commonalities and common concerns across regions emerged. A first common theme was the need for responsible innovation, not just to avoid doing harm, but even more to strive for “doing good” and achieving benefits. Furthermore, and resonating with other subthemes of our volume, the need was highlighted to give more attention to commercialization, and also to move beyond science and involve the public as a focus of responsible innovation practices. Finally, it was urged to look beyond the western countries, and particularly to Asia, with its cluster of countries with substantial nanotechnology research and commercialization activities. That is to say, further expansion. In their chapter on “Crossover Research,” Rune Nydal, Sophia Efstathiou and Astrid Lægreid discuss the issue of integrated knowledge. They define “integrative” research broadly as research that tries to mesh humanities and social science knowledge or methods, with the practice of a natural or life science project. Their chapter focuses on integrative research that has a professed ethical or societal, normative aim: what has been pursued under the label of “technology assessment” or “ethical, legal and social aspects” (ELSA) programs. In particular, they study recent ELSA calls from the Research Council of Norway. For humanists and scientists positioned in such an integrated project, the value of integration in general becomes a pressing issue of daily work. The authors find that the reasons why integration is seen as valuable varies considerably—sometimes the reasons may not even be clearly articulated. People involved in integrative research may hold different and even conflicting interests, as well as different ideas about what integration involves in the first place. The volume ends with the chapter by Noela Invernizzi, based on her keynote lecture from the Arizona 2011 conference. She analyses the position of unions from diverse regions of the world about the risks and implications of nanotechnology for workers. By interviewing union leaders and analyzing fifteen different union declarations that were produced between 2004 and 2010, Invernizzi reconstructs the origins of the nanotechnology debate within the union movement, attending to the various positions, concerns and demands. She concludes that the potential implications of nanotechnology for employment have received limited discussion within unions so far, in some cases because it is still not perceived as important (Australia and the United States), and elsewhere because unions are overwhelmed with existing problems, and nanotechnology seems to be a long-term concern (Latin America). Only in Europe has the topic begun to be discussed, ranging from optimism over the possible creation of jobs to fears about an industrial restructuring in a context of crisis.


7

In conclusion, this volume explores the various expansions that mark the development of nanotechnology and other emerging technologies: shifting meanings, new audiences, innovative trajectories, and the rearrangements of responsibilities. New questions, new concerns. Little by little, it will be sorted out. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the organizers of the 2011 S.NET conference held in Tempe, Arizona, who provided a wonderful platform for the authors and the editors of this book to meet and discuss their research. This book would not have been possible without the financial support of the sponsors of the 2012 S.NET conference—to take place at the University of Twente in Enschede, The Netherlands—and in particular, the Institute of Innovation and Governance Studies (IGS) of the University of Twente. Finally, we would like to thank wholeheartedly Evelien Rietberg, who spent her weekend hours helping prepare the manuscript.

References Geroski, P.A. (2000) Models of Technology Diffusion, Research Policy, 29, pp. 603-625. Hughes, T.P. (1983) Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Laughlin, R. (2005) A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, Basic Books, New York. Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., and Graham, S. (2008). Assessing the Nature of Nanotechnology: Can We Uncover an Emerging General Purpose Technology? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), pp. 315-329. Metcalfe, J.S. (1997) On Diffusion and the Process of Technological Change, in: Antonelli, G., and DeLiso, N. (eds.) Economics of Structural and Technological Change, London: Routledge, pp. 123-144. Milburn, C. (2008) Nanovision: Engineering the Future, Durham: Duke University Press. Selin, C. (2007), Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 32(2), pp. 196-220 Rip, A. (2006) Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists, Science as Culture, 15(4), 349–365. Rogers, E.M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations, Glencoe: Free Press. Van Lente, H., and A. Rip (1998) The Rise of Membrane Technology: From Rhetorics to Social Reality, Social Studies of Science, 28(2), pp. 221-254.

Affordances of Nanoscale Images Arie RIPa and Martin RUIVENKAMPb Department Science, Technology, and Policy Studies (STəәPS) Faculty of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Netherlands b Centre for Society and the Life Sciences Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Faculty of Science Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands a

Abstract. What do images “do” in the world of nanotechnology, and generally? They are visual representations, but the epistemological question of what they represent (in the sense of resemblance) is secondary to the question of how they capture the “reader” and lead to particular uses and ways of seeing. The notion of affordance, as used in design studies, goes a long way in analyzing this crucial question; but as it turns out, it has to be extended. Design is involved in the construction of nano-images, highlighting shapes and using colors to create a good impression of what the nanoscale could look like. While there has been criticism of the liberal use of “impression management” in nanoscience (including artist’s impressions), it is generally accepted as a way to create affordances for intended audiences. Affordances of images differ from those of common artifacts (say, a door handle) in that the gaze of the “reader” is drawn into a world contained in the image. The gaze, and by implication, the reader, can move around in the scenery that is offered, but its movement is guided by the visual semiotics of the image. This is how a story starts being told to the reader. There are more affordances involved, from the rectangular framing of the image which separates it but also links it with its setting (as with the projection screen in a movie theatre), to further framing through text or its re-staging as part of another image. In the wider use of nanoscale images, the dark blue background that we associate with outer space can be used to signify space at the nanoscale. Cultural repertoires also play a role in the story told by the image, for example, the “magic bullet” trope that shapes our reading of Coneyl Jay’s Nanoprobe image. This image has actually obtained iconic status: it can be used to signify nanotechnology and its promise, mobilizing support as a further kind of affordance. Clearly, the affordances of images are multilayered. And the ways in which nanoscale images “do their thing” are not categorically different whether they are within science or without. Keywords. Affordances, framing, semiotics, nanoscale images, nanotechnology, visual representations.

Introduction The world of nanoscience and nanotechnology is full of images. To understand what they do (to “readers”), it is important to consider how they afford “readings”. Conversely, such analysis allows a further elaboration of the notion of “affordance”, as it is used increasingly to trace the agency of artefacts, “nos pauvres frères” (Latour 1992).

10

Affordances of Nanoscale Images

Within the lab, nanoscale images are created by drawing on visualization techniques that transform data into pictures.1 Aesthetically appealing images are used in journals, magazines and newspapers, but also on websites of nanoscience research institutions and in technology policy documents, sometimes to illustrate research findings and sometimes to inform a wider public about nanotechnology, what it entails and the developments that might be expected. Artist’s impressions co-exist with data-based images, already in the world of science (Ruivenkamp and Rip forthcoming), and they circulate more widely in their own right. As in the case of Coneyl Jay’s 2002 Nanoprobe image (to which we will return later), they can even acquire a new vernacular name of their own. (Jay’s image is frequently dubbed “Nanolouse”, which is not a title approved by the artist). One can see this (and analyse it) as a matter of “how to do things with images” (cf. Austin 1962). Instead, we ask “what images do”—and this is much more than the epistemological question of their resemblance, somehow, to unknown things out there.2 It is here that the notion of affordance comes in. Affordances of images have some special characteristics, deriving from their being “read” (that is to say, reading in a generalized sense), i.e. they have content. We will develop this in a number of steps, moving between general considerations and analysis of actual nanoscale images. The latter allows us to identify a further type of affordance, when images, such as Jay’s Nanoprobe (a.k.a. the Nanolouse), acquire an iconic status.

1. The Notion of Affordance While Gibson’s (1979) original notion of affordance remains important,3 for our purposes, Norman’s (1990) use of the notion of affordance in design, how artefacts invite as well as constrain us in our handling of them, is more directly relevant (cf. Conole and Dyke [2004] on affordances of ICT). Images are produced (and taken up elsewhere, and modified). They invite certain “readings” while in doing so constrain the “reader”. The “authors” may well think in those terms when constructing the image, as we will show in the next section for nanoscale images. Norman (1990) focused on creating the right affordances when designing everyday artefacts like door handles. The issues are broader, however. There is the general 1

There are several steps in the production of visualizations (cf. Ruivenkamp and Rip 2010; Pitt 2004; Pitt 2006). For example, scanning probe microscopy can be used to visualize the nanoscale, by mechanically moving a probe over a nanoscale surface and recording probe-surface interactions (i.e. forces exerted on the tip are measured). This generates data which is then transformed into images. The visualization process does not stop here. The images are further manipulated, by sharpening the images through noise reduction and by emphasizing edges, while colours are added to highlight aspects of particular scientific interest or simply for aesthetic appeal.

2

A similar move is visible in the philosophy of science; for example, see Pombo (2010), who takes visual images as semiotic devices within science. An important point is that references to the “unknown things” are construed in practice, and whether or not images represent is an outcome of the imaging processes rather than something that can be checked in its own right (cf. Lynch and Woolgar 1990). This can be encompassed in a broader notion of representation, as ‘standing for’ and being able to ‘act for’, which is somewhat independent of whatever is being ‘stood for’ (cf. Brown 2009; Ruivenkamp and Rip 2011).

3

Gibson (1979) introduced the notion of affordance in the context of psychology of perception arguing that all living species orient to, and act on, the affordances (i.e. the possibilities for action offered by their environments).


11

debate about the agency of artefacts, whereas the approach through affordances offers a third way. And the affordances of concrete artefacts (like door handles) are co-shaped by the situation and the overall way we tend to move about in our environment (here, Gibson [1979] returns). Hutchby (2001) picked up on the notion of affordance as an “approach to the study of technologies and social life which offers a reconciliation between the opposing poles of constructivism and realism” (Hutchby 2001, 444).4 For him, “affordances are functional and relational aspects which frame, while not determining, the possibilities for agentic action in relation to an object” (ibid., 444). The “cues for action” (DiMaggio 1997) that are offered are contextually and culturally defined. They are part of a repertoire, or a “toolkit” from which actors can “select differing pieces for constructing [their] lines of action” (Swidler 1986, 277). How a repertoire is constituted influences the availability of cues for action and the choice between these cues. People “construct chains of action beginning with at least some pre-fabricated links. Culture influences action through the shape and organization of those links, not by determining the ends to which they are put” (Swidler 1986, 277). For images, there is a repertoire of visual imagery in our contemporary culture, for example, the dark blue of outer space, which is the backdrop for a depiction of our fragile earth. The same imagery has been used for cover pictures of reports on the prospects of nanotechnology,5 with an artist’s impression of a nanoscale surface as if it were replacing the moon’s surface but still with the Earth depicted in the background (cf. Nordmann 2004). The availability of cues for action in a certain environment constitutes an affordance structure, now of the environment rather than of a particular artefact. The affordance structure routes actions, just like hills and valleys of a landscape direct how it is traversed. The landscape metaphor is useful to understand how actors, intentionally or unintentionally, act in certain ways. As Deuten (2003) phrased it: In a landscape, some routes are more traversable than others. Why climb over steep mountains, if you can follow a path through a valley (if you know the valley is there)? The routes which will be chosen not only depend on characteristics of the landscape, but also on characteristics of the traveller (e.g. is she experienced, strong, adventurous, etc?). Also the fact whether certain routes have been traversed before (by others or by oneself) can determine the traversability of a landscape—this captures the phenomenon of path-dependencies. Rather than incentives which reward or punish, affordances suggest directions of action—which might work out differently for different actors. Moreover, the suggestive force of affordances might increase as the landscape is traversed increasingly and patterns become visible for (new) travellers. (Deuten 2003, 14).

Such affordance structures cannot simply be designed by actors, but they can work towards it and modulate existing affordance structures. There are interesting attempts to create “cues for action”, for example, when designing spaces like airports that are 4

This approach “involves seeing technologies neither in terms of their ‘interpretive textual’ properties nor of their ‘essential technical’ properties, but in terms of their affordances (Gibson, 1979). […] In this way, technologies can be understood as artefacts which may be both shaped by and shaping of the practices humans use in interaction with, around and through them. This ‘third way’ between the (constructivist) emphasis on the shaping power of human agency and the (realist) emphasis on the constraining power of technical capacities opens the way for new analyses of how technological artefacts become important elements in the patterns of ordinary human conduct.” (Hutchby 2001, 444).

5

See the cover image of the National Science and Technology Council’s 1999 report: Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom.

12


traversed by many people having different aims. And there is the well-known story of Robert Moses, New York’s city architect in the 1920s and 1930s, designing parks and beaches on Long Island, as well as low overpasses across the motorways leading to them, so that public transport busses could not pass under them, and poor people would be unable to travel to the beaches.6

2. Creating Nanoscale Images and their Affordances There is no simple anchoring of nanoscale images in earlier visualizations of relevant phenomena, as there is in radio astronomy where images can be related to optical pictures of the stars (cf. Lynch and Edgerton 1988). The closest relevant phenomenon is the tradition of visualizing molecules in chemistry (Francoeur 1997), and indeed, nanoscale images often draw on space-filling models as used in regular chemistry. There is a certain freedom about which pictures are constructed and which affordances are given priority. Within nanoscience, images should afford readings of the nanoscale that are persuasive to colleague scientists. During visualization processes, image producers—authors—use their own expectations about how the nanoscale should look, together with suggestions from colleagues, as well as ideas about publicity and marketing. Over time, stabilizations occur within the communities of practice about the best ways to present the nanoscale (Ruivenkamp and Rip 2010). For example, when using colour (no longer a contested practice), orange is seen as a “realistic” colour to present the nanoscale, while blue is also allowed because height differences are then easier to show by using lighter shades of blue to represent higher points of nanoscale surfaces.7 In Figure 1, three genres of imaging are shown for nanotubes: a contrast-enhanced light and dark grey picture, which is considered to be close to the data produced by the visualization technique used; a colour-enhanced picture which is more telling about the presumed physical shapes;8 and an artist’s impression of the shape and atomic structure of nanotubes.9 The choice for one or another genre depends on the expectations about the audience to be reached. For audiences outside nanoscience, up to lay publics— which have different reading abilities—graphic designs might be preferred to facilitate understanding of how the nanoscale could look.

6

In science & technology studies, this case has the status of an “urban legend”. This became clear in the discussion of the complexities of the actual story of the overpasses (cf. Joerges 1999a; Joerges 1999b; Woolgar and Cooper 1999).

7

Cf. Lynch and Edgerton (1988) about the use of colour in astronomy.

8

The picture (as well as the one in Figure 1c) is reproduced in grey tones. For the original coloured picture, see the website indicated.

9

The image in Figure 1c is not assertive. Often, graphic designs of nanotubes invite readers to look inside the tube, drawing them in.


(A)

(B)

(C)

13

Figure 1. A continuum ranging from a visualization of the nanoscale to a graphic design: (A) Visualization of nanotubes as produced by an imaging device (source: Kinloch 2002); (B) Colour-enhanced picture of nanotubes (image by C. Martin et al.; source: Hoover 2006); (C) Graphic design of double-walled nanotubes (K. Moore, cover of Nature Nanotechnology, 4[1] 2009).

It is impression management, and for a purpose. It can be questioned whether the affordance offered actually helps audiences to read the images “correctly”—whatever “correct” might be. There has been criticism of the mixing of data-based visualizations with artist’s impressions, because—as the critics argue—the physics must be correct (Ottino 2003). A perpetrator of such a crime (see Figure 2) countered that the point is to show the essential scientific content in an understandable way.10 While the critic was concerned about misunderstandings arising with readers of the image, the nanoscientist was relaxed about it, saying that images are metaphors anyway.

Figure 2. Graphic design of an array of nanotubes FETs overlaid with gold source and drain electrodes. This cover image of Science was criticized by Ottino: if carbon atoms are shown, the much larger gold atoms must also be visible. (Courtesy of C. Dekker, TU Delft/Tremani; source: Bachtold et al. [2001]).

10

Nanoscientist Cees Dekker, interview with Michael Persson in de Volkskrant, December 20, 2003, about Ottino’s criticism of an image of a carbon nanotube (where atoms were visible) on a gold surface (depicted as a continuous macroscale structure), although at this scale, the much larger gold atoms would be visible as well). The image (Figure 2), commissioned by Dekker’s group, was given prominence by its being used as the cover of Science magazine (Bachtold et al. 2001).

14


What the image does here (apart from its combination with text, identifying it as a cover page of a scientific journal, which wants to draw attention to its contents) is to show a world that could have been created in a mechanics workshop, and it draws the reader into this world to inspect what has been made. This virtual movement is typical for how affordances of images work (and perhaps affordances more generally, when the reader of an artefact or a landscape considers it before trying out how it could be handled).

3. Entering the World of the Image The nanoscale images we are considering here are bounded, effectively, by a rectangular frame. They’re not all over the place, like a rhizome, and they are mobile (especially with modern production and reproduction techniques). We have learned to get into the frame and to get absorbed by the world inside the frame. This allows us to appreciate the content of the image and respond to it. This type of affordance, entering a world, is very striking in the case of watching a movie projected on a screen in the theatre. One forgets that one watches moving shapes on a flat screen and sees scenes with people, as if one were inside that world and watching from the wings.11 Movie makers can play with this affordance by adding a voice over (or background music) speaking directly to the watcher of the movie but not heard by the people in the movie scene. Such extra-diegetic elements (Bleecker 2010) can then be played with again, as when a character in the movie turns to speak to his presumed audience in the theatre. The equivalent of movies in nanoscience are the videos of nanoscale entities rearranging themselves in the pictures produced by visualization techniques, and animations like an artist’s impression of a rotaxane molecule happily pumping away.12 Nanoscientists actually commission graphic designers and computer animation experts to make animations that offer the right impression.13 What does one see in such a world, for example in the image of the Nanolouse (Figure 3)?

11

There is much more to say about the vicarious pleasure involved, cf. Žižek (1991).

12

Animations are used widely to explain scientific ideas about the world, say inside the human body (see for example the Bio Visions animation produced for Harvard students: http://multimedia.mcb.harvard. edu/content.html), where one can see sort of Star Wars movements through this inner space. The only distinction with SF movies like Fantastic Voyage is that there are no characters involved, it is just moving through a cell-scape as if one was sitting in a car in a rollercoaster.

13

There is the challenge of presenting the unknown, the extraordinary, so that it can still be appreciated by the reader (cf. Bleecker 2010). Kirby (2010) has analysed how SF movies can do this.


15

Figure 3. Coneyl Jay’s Nanoprobe (originally titled Nanotechnology)—Winner of the 2002 Visions of Science Award.

Some contextual information is necessary to realize that the red objects are meant to depict blood cells, but that there is an entity grasping a blood cell is immediately clear. That is the beginning of the story that the picture can tell the reader, and thus its affordance. The story is not told in words, but in the structure of the image.14 In some images, such as the famous Nano Flower Bouquet by Mark Welland and Ghin Wei Ho, the gaze of the reader can freely move around in the scenery offered by the aesthetically appealing image. In the image of the Nanolouse, there is an actant—a nanobot— doing something. The plot of the story that is told is not completely fixed. It could be about the nanobot helping the blood cells, perhaps repairing them.15 This was actually the vision that the designer of the image wanted to visualize, and the image is still used for that purpose. But there are other readings; in a study of Landau (2009), some respondents saw the nanobot attacking the blood cell. While stories as told in words can be open-ended, they tend to be shaped to convey a message. In the case of “terse stories” (Boje 1991) of perhaps one or two sentences as told in organizations to convey how this organization does things, the context and the cultural repertoire of the organization help to stabilize the meaning. An image is less structuring, because the gaze of the reader can wander around in it. How the world of the image is entered plays a role as well. While the reader can forget about the rectangular frame, it is still there. It separates the image from the setting in which it is presented, but at the same time it is part of the meaning of the image. As with paintings, the choice of the material frame and the location co-determines how the image speaks to us. The producer of the image can play with the framing effect, for example when the borders provided by the framing are crossed by parts of the image. The image over14

This is studied in visual semiotics, cf. Kress and Van Leeuwen 2006.

15

The reference to the nanobot as a “Helper” indicates that a Greimas-type actantial analysis is possible. This analysis has a “Subject” carrying out the major action to obtain the “Object”, desiring it, searching for it, aiming to realize it. And there are “Helpers” and “Opponents” along a dimension of collaboration and conflict (cf. Greimas 1983).

16


flows its bounds (débordement), reminding readers that it is a constructed world they are invited to enter.

4. Framings of the Image A frame does not just separate the image and present it in its own right, as it were. As Sonesson phrased it: “a frame is just as contiguous to objects outside it as to those which are on the inside” (Sonesson 1996, 48). Thus, it is part of the setting that sets the scene. The author of the image can be actively involved in such showcasing, setting the stage and positioning the image.16 The reader contributes to the setting, as well, already by interpreting it and “framing the situation”, as Goffman (1974) and other symbolicinteractionist scholars have called it.17 Images can move—in their own right—from one location and setting to another. They are then re-staged, necessarily so.18 In the age of mechanical reproduction and now also electronic reproduction, there is the idea that an image can just be copied (and attempts are made to come as close to the original as possible).19 But when a nanoscale image is presented in academic journals, in professional magazines or in newspapers, the sociotechnical setting is different, and thus different readings are afforded. Actually, in the new location the “original” image can be made part of a new image, enhancing its message and/or exploiting some of its meanings for the purposes of the new location. An interesting example is how images of rotaxane, a so-called molecular machine,20 as used within science, have also been taken up and re-used elsewhere (see Figure 4). Rotaxanes are dumbbell-shaped molecules, with a ring-shaped compound that can move along the string of atoms (“axle”) between the two bulky groups at the string’s termini (Kay and Leigh 2006). The ring-shaped compound can move between the termini of the molecule under the influence of light it absorbs, so the machine is “fuelled” by light. In a professional chemistry magazine, the promise was highlighted by putting a picture of the molecule against a blue background with sunrays coming in from the top left corner (Figure 4A). The association that, one day, cars 16

This is a general point, and emphasized in actor-network theory, for example the staging that is involved in science-in-the-making. Latour discusses “Pasteur’s theatre of proofs”, and notes how “Pasteur works as much on [setting] the stage as on the scene and the plot” (Latour 1990, 42).

17

Note also his use of the theatrical metaphor, including the powerful notion of front stage and back stage (Goffman 1959). This trope cannot be directly applied to visual images in their two-dimensional form, but it is definitely part of the affordances of images-in-context.

18

Velasquez’ painting Las Meninas afforded different impressions when it was part of the life in the Royal Palace in Toledo, compared with its present setting in the Prado Museum in Madrid. And its reproduction on the pages of the catalogue of an exhibition works differently than when it is part of a treatise on visual semiotics (Sonneson 2006).

19

There is a dedicated industry producing imitations, e.g. for the setting of a play in the theatre. Their experience is that an exact copy does not give a realistic effect, they have to modify it, add a finishing touch, to give the audience the experience of seeing the original.

20

Within supramolecular chemistry, a molecular machine is defined as “an assembly of a discrete number of molecular components (that is, a supramolecular structure) designed to perform a function through the mechanical movements of its components, which occur under appropriate external stimulation” (Credi and Tian 2007). In the wider world, the use of the word ‘machines’ will carry further connotations.


17

might be fuelled by rotaxanes turning solar energy into movements led to the reproduction of the image in an Italian car magazine. From there, the picture of rotaxane went to an Italian newspaper, as part of a drawing showing a racing car fuelled, somehow, by rotaxane (Figure 4B). The reader is instructed by an arrow that the rotaxane is part of the car’s engine. To complete the message, the sun appears in the top right-hand corner sending one of its beams to the car engine. For those who had not yet discerned that the car will run on this new-fangled engine, there are arrows, one showing motion of the wheels, another showing forward movement of the car. The drawing also plays on our cultural repertoire of motor car advertisements that feature a beautiful woman leaning against the car—only now it is a rotaxane molecule.

(A)

(B)

Figure 4. (A) An artist’s impression of the space-filling molecular model of rotaxane, highlighting that the movement is fuelled by light (Source: Chemical & Engineering News, January 30, 2006; the picture was reproduced in ‘La mia Auto,’ March, 2006: p. 132). (B) A drawing using that model to create an image of its application fuelling a car engine (Source: Il Sole 24 Ore—January 26, 2006).

The successive re-stagings of the rotaxane image were building on the vision of a molecular machine that would do wonderful things, using different graphic affordances to do so. Visions can be ambivalent. For example, the Nanolouse image was featured on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk), but it was staged differently. The BBC presented it as the 2002 winner of the Visions of Science Award, and then positioned it, though accompanying text, as telling a story of hype: “The more overhyped applications see tiny machines roaming the body to cure diseases”. But the BBC also presented the image as a realistic possibility: it “intends to show one of the possible applications of nanotechnology in medicine in the future—microscopic machines roaming the body, injecting or taking samples for tests”. Staging work is being done here, up to subtle shifts from “tiny” machines (which can therefore penetrate) to “microscopic” machines (so a scientific connotation). The text that accompanies the Nanolouse image is like a voiceover in a movie, co-creating the image’s affordance.

18


If re-staging of images occurs all the time, including transformations of the picture, the notion of an image moving about in its own right becomes complicated. Does the use of a rotaxane molecule as part of a drawing in an Italian newspaper count as an occurrence of that picture? When is the picture transformed beyond recognition?21 In our earlier work on circulation of nanoscale images we argued there should be a lineage relation between occurrences, and that “beyond recognition” is to be treated as a practical question, linked to what actors do and say (Ruivenkamp 2011). This has allowed us to trace occurrences of well-known images like the Nano Flower and the Nanolouse.

5. Images Becoming Iconic Summarizing the preceding section, and referring to Latour’s felicitous phrase of “immutable mobiles” (when characterizing artefacts), we could say that visual images are mobile and mutable. In the digital electronic age, their technical mutability is almost unlimited. But there are limits in other ways. The well-known image of the IBM logo, “written” with xenon atoms on a nickel surface, visualized through scanning probing microscopy and judicious colouring, cannot be changed without detracting from its status as an icon for nanotechnology. There are a few other iconic images of nanotechnology, perhaps the main one being the nanogear image incorporating Drexler’s vision of nanotechnology as molecular manufacturing.22 By now, the Nanolouse image qualifies for iconic status, as well, and it is instructive to see how this came about. It is instructive as such, and it also illustrates how further kinds of affordance emerge. The image started circulating widely after winning the Visions of Science Award in 2002. At first, the image was accompanied by text explaining what it depicted (namely, “nanotechnology”). Subsequently, the image was linked to an increasing variety of issues, 23 in particular to specific domains of nanomedicine. 24 From 2005 onward, explanations were not necessary anymore to associate the Nanolouse with nanomedicine: the image could speak for itself.25 Tellingly, strategy documents produced by the European Technology Platform (ETP)

21

The reader will notice that we shifted to talk of ‘picture’ rather than ‘image’ in order to phrase our question. There is a background question, as soon as we consider the image + setting as the unit of study: how far does it extend? (The rhizome returns!)

22

See Ruivenkamp (2011) and Milburn (2008). Rip and Van Amerom (2009) indicate how the Drexlerian vision was backgrounded, while the image of the nanogear continued to be used in presentations of nanotechnology to wider publics.

23

For example, in 2003–2004, the Nanolouse image was linked to the emerging risk debate and Drexler’s vision of nanobots, which reflected the overall societal agenda at the time (Rip and Van Amerom 2010).

24

For example, in 2005, a pharmaceutical company linked the Nanolouse image to lab-on-a-chip developments. Furthermore it has been linked to nanoprobes (2006), robotics applied in the healthcare sector (2007), and drug-delivery (2008).

25

The British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) even used it without any framing, when it put the Nanolouse image next to the contact information presented on their website.


19

Nanomedicine (2006) used images such as the Nanolouse to illustrate, and to some extent stand for, the expected achievements of nanomedicine.26 While one sees the cumulative effects of circulation and uptake of the image here, an additional element is the resonance with our general cultural repertoire. The Nanolouse image draws on, and reinforces, ideas about “magic bullets” redressing our sorrows. Once an image has an iconic status, there is a further affordance: it can be used to mobilize support, as long as it remains accepted as iconic. For the Nanolouse image, featuring a nanobot, there is the risk of being associated with the scare story of runaway nanobots (grey goo) associated with the Drexlerian vision of molecular manufacturing. While this is a real possibility, it has not occurred, probably because Drexlerian visions, after their prominence in the early 2000s, have receded into the background (Rip and Van Ameron 2010).

6. In Conclusion We have addressed visual representations in and of science, specifically nanoscale images, moving away from traditional epistemological puzzles about representation, and instead inquiring what images actually do. What they actually do can be understood in terms of affordances, but we extended the approach by paying attention to visual semiotics (and semiotics more generally, including actor-network theory). By studying concrete nanoscale images, we are able to offer further insights about reframing, circulation, and the effect of attaining iconic status. One conclusion is about affordances: they are contextualized and have several layers, from how an image is read and appreciated within its bounds, to the settings of images, and the effects of images obtaining some iconic status and becoming part of our cultural repertoire. These considerations might actually apply to affordances of designed artifacts as well.27 The other conclusion is about visual representation. Visual representation in science is the outcome of a complex process, as has been argued and demonstrated before (Lynch and Woolgar 1990). What we have added, on the basis of our study of nanoscale images, is that such representation is not limited to what happens inside science, and that there is actually a continuum of representation (in various genres) from inside science to presentations of science. This is very clear in the case of nanoscience and nanotechnologies, and may indicate an overall change in modes, or at least genres, of representation in and of science.28

26

In our detailed study of the circulation of the Nanolouse image (Ruivenkamp 2011), we found it occurred (for a few years, 2005-2007) more frequently in the scientific domain, e.g. on websites of research centers and institutes, than in non-scientific domains. This was striking, because the Nanolouse image embodies a speculative vision rather than reflecting ongoing scientific work. Also, possible connotations of interference, damage, and runaway nanobots were backgrounded, or simply not considered by the scientists. To them, the image contributed to their project of impression management.

27

Think of Gerrit Rietfeld, the well-known Dutch designer of houses and chairs. Sitting in a Rietfeld chair is a different experience from sitting in a chair bought from IKEA.

28

We have discussed this possibility in more detail in Ruivenkamp and Rip (forthcoming).

20


Acknowledgements This paper originated as a contribution to a session at the S.NET annual meeting, Tempe Arizona, November 7-10, 2011. We are grateful to Alfred Nordmann who suggested affordances as an important theme, to the participants in the session for useful comments, and to Colin Milburn for helpful suggestions and editing of the earlier draft version. The research on which this paper is based was funded through the Dutch R&D consortium NanoNed.

References Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bachtold, A., Hadley, P., Nakanishi, T. and Dekker, C. (2001) Logic Circuits with Carbon Nanotube Transistors, Science, 294, no. 5545, pp. 1317-1320. Bleecker, J. (2010) Design Fiction: From Props To Prototypes, http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2010/ 09/21/design-fiction-from-props-to-prototypes-2010-01sj-biennial-catalog-essay/ Boje, D. M. (1991) The Storytelling Organization: A Study of Story Performance in an Office-Supply Firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, pp. 106-126. Brown, M. B. (2009) Science and Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Conole, G. and Dyke, M. (2004) What Are the Affordances of Information and Communication Technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), pp. 113-124. Credi, A. and Tian, H. (2007) Big Challenges for Tiny Machines, Advanced Functional Materials, 17, pp. 679-682. Deuten, J. J. (2003) Cosmopolitanising Technologies: A Study of Four Emerging Technological Regimes, Enschede: University of Twente, PhD thesis, defended 20 June 2003. DiMaggio, P. (1997) Culture and Cognition, Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), pp. 263-288. ETP Nanomedicine (2006). Strategic Research Agenda for Nanomedicine, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Francoeur, E. (1997) The Forgotten Tool: The Design and Use of Molecular Models, Social Studies of Science, 27, pp. 7-40. Gibson, J. J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Perception, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, New York: Harper & Row. Greimas, A. J. (1983) Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hoover, A. (2006) World’s Tiniest Test Tubes Get Teensiest Corks, University of Florida News, http://news. ufl.edu/2006/05/10/nanocork/. Hutchby, I. (2001) Technologies, Texts and Affordances, Sociology, 35, pp. 441-456. Joerges, B. (1999a) Do Politics Have Artefacts? Social Studies of Science, 29(3), pp. 411-431.


21

Joerges, B. (1999b) Scams Cannot Be Busted: Reponse to Steve Woolgar and Geoff Cooper, ‘Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence?: Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&TS’, Social Studies of Science, 29(3), pp. 450-457. Kay, E. R. and Leigh, D. A. (2006) Photochemistry: Lighting up Nanomachines, Nature, 440, pp. 286-287. Kinloch, I. (2002) Macromolecular Materials Laboratory—Dr. Ian Kinloch, Macromolecular Materials Laboratory, http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/polymer/members/iak21.html. Kirby, D. (2010) The Future is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular Films in Generating Realworld Technological Development, Social Studies of Science, 40(1), pp. 41-70. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, London: Routledge. Landau, J., Groscurth, C. R., Wright, L., and Condit, C. M. (2009) Visualizing Nanotechnology: The Impact of Visual Images on Lay American Audience Associations with Nanotechnology, Public Understanding of Science, 18(3) pp. 325-337. Latour, B. (1990) Drawing Things Together, in: Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S. (eds.) (1990) Representation in Scientific Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 19-68. Latour, B. (1992) Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts, in: Bijker, W.E. and Law, J. (eds.) (1992) Shaping Technology / Building Society, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 225258. Lynch, M. and Edgerton Jr., S. Y. (1988) Aesthetic and Digital Image Processing Representational Craft in Contemporary Astronomy, in: Fyfe, G. and Law, J. (eds.) (1988) Picturing Power: Visual Depictions and Social Relations, London: Routledge, pp. 184-220. Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S. (1990) Representation in Scientific Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Milburn, C. (2008) Nanovision: Engineering the Future, Durham: Duke University Press. Nordmann, A. (2004) New Space for Old Cosmologies, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 23(4), pp. 48-54. Norman, D. A. (1990) The Design of Everyday Things, New York: Doubleday. National Science and Technology Council (1999) Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom, Washington, D.C.: National Science and Technology Council. Ottino, J. M. (2003) Is a Picture Worth 1000 Words? Exciting New Illustration Technologies Should Be Used with Care, Nature, 421, pp. 474-476. Persson, M. (2003) Fraaie platen in saaie bladen, De Volkskrant, December 20. Pitt, J. C. (2004) The Epistemology of the Very Small, in: Baird, D., Nordmann, A. and Schummer, J. (eds.) (2004) Discovering the Nanoscale, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 157-165. Pitt, J. C. (2006) When is an Image Not an Image? in: Schummer, J. and Baird, D. (eds.) Nanotechnology Challenges: Implications for Philosophy, Ethic, and Society, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 131-141. Pombo, O. (2010) Epistemological Features of Nano-images. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, Darmstadt, 29 September–2 October 2010. Rip, A. and Van Amerom, M. (2010) Governing De Facto Agendas Surrounding Nanotechnology: Two Cases Full of Contingencies, Lock-outs, and Lock-ins, in: Kaiser, M., Kurath, M., Maasen, S., and Rehman-

22


Sutter, C. (eds.) (2010) Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime (Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 27), Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 131-156. Ruivenkamp, M. (2011) Circulating Images of Nanotechnology, Enschede: University of Twente, PhD thesis, defended 21 April 2011. Ruivenkamp, M. and Rip, A. (2010) Visualizing the Invisible Nanoscale: Study of Visualization Practices in Nanotechnology Community of Practice, Science Studies, 23(1), pp. 3-36. Ruivenkamp, M. and Rip, A. (2011) Entanglement of Imaging and Imagining of Nanotechnology, Nanoethics, 5, pp. 185-193. Ruivenkamp, M. and Rip, A. (Forthcoming) Nano-Images as Hybrid Monsters, in: Lynch, M., Woolgar, S., Vertesi, J. and Coopmans, C. (eds.) (forthcoming) New Representation in Scientific Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sonesson, G. (1996). An Essay Concerning Images: From Rhetoric to Semiotics by Way of Ecological Physics, Semiotica, 109(1/2), pp. 41-140. Sonesson, G. (2006). Current Issues in Pictorial Semiotics. Four lectures: The Quadrature of the Hermeneutic Circle; The Psychology and Archaeology of Semiosis; From the Critique of the Iconicity Critique to Pictorality; On Semiotic Ecology. Indexicality and Structure in Pictures and the Perceptual World, in Bouissac, P. (ed.), Semiotics Institute Online. Swidler, A. (1986) Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies, American Sociological Review, 51(2) pp. 273286. Woolgar, S. and Cooper, G. (1999) Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence: Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&TS, Social Studies of Science, 29(3), pp. 433-449. Žižek, S. (1991) Looking Awry: An introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Attitudinal Communities and the Interpretation of Nanotechnology News: Frames, Schemas, and Attitudes as Predictors of Reader Reactions Susanna PRIESTa and Ted GREENHALGHb a University of Washington, USA b University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA Abstract. While a number of scholars have speculated as to the likely influence of media framing (variously defined) on public opinion about nanotechnology, only limited experimental results exploring or demonstrating such effects are available. This study used exploratory experimental research with a student population to compare the influence of pre-existing attitudes and reader interpretations to the effects of media framing of nanotechnology stories for four different applications (in electronics, food, medicine, and energy production, respectively) using four different “information order” frames (emphasizing social risk, physical risk, regulatory status, and benefits, respectively). Only very limited direct media effects were suggested, whereas the effects of pre-existing attitudes appeared quite strong, as did the effects of schema processing. While this experiment used a “conservative” definition of framing, involving manipulation of information order rather than manipulation of information content, the results suggest the current fixation on media framing as a determinant of reactions overlooks other important factors. Reader interpretations, which likely result from a variety of factors in addition to media frames (including pre-existing attitudes toward such things as science and technology, authority, and governance) appear more important.1 Keywords. Nanotechnology, framing, schema processing, attitudes, risk perception.

Introduction Nanotechnology is a term that covers a very broad range of processes and products that exploit material properties uniquely associated with the “nanoscale,” i.e., that involve objects (or dimensions) measured in billionths of a meter. Nanotechnology and the associated science (“nanoscience”) are promoted as the basis for the “next wave” of technological development in many areas, including medicine (targeted drug delivery; new diagnostic equipment and techniques), agriculture (food packaging; fertilizer and pesticide application), materials (stronger sporting equipment; wrinkle-free and stainresistant clothes; more durable tires and brake pads), and even environment (pollution 1

This project was supported by grant # 0531160 from the U.S. National Science Foundation to the University of South Carolina, under subcontract to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

24

Attitudinal Communities and the Interpretation of Nanotechnology News

monitoring and control). Nanoparticles of silver are being incorporated into washing machines as an antibacterial agent, and titanium dioxide nanoparticles are put into sunscreen to make it appear transparent; nanoscale technology is already widely used in electronics manufacturing in the quest for ever-more-compact storage and circuitry. Lest this seem too much like science fiction, the Woodrow Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2009) reports that over 1000 consumer products presently available already incorporate nanotechnology, and many believe this is only the beginning. PET also reports that over $60 billion in nano-products were sold in the U.S. in 2007 and $150 billion worth in 2008, with some estimating this figure could reach $2 trillion within a few years. From a social studies of science perspective, nanotechnology represents a new opportunity of a different kind, presenting a unique window through which to study the emergence of public response to an entirely novel set of technological developments (or at least a set of developments widely portrayed as entirely novel) through “upstream” social research taking place early in the development cycle. Nanotechnology is often compared to biotechnology as a far-reaching “transformative” set of technologies and a potential source of public controversy; however, popular reactions to nanotechnology so far have been quite different than those for biotechnology. While biotechnology seems to have a deep cultural resonance that often induces a cautious reaction, nanotechnology is emerging in an essentially positive climate of public opinion. Where biotechnology’s risks have often appeared to the technology’s promoters to be socially amplified, nanotechnology’s substantial and largely uncertain potential for toxicity (see, e.g., work by Shatkin 2008), as well as the possibility of other potential negative effects, seems to produce a much more attenuated public response. While expectations for the trajectory of public reactions to nanotechnology have undoubtedly been influenced by observations of biotechnology (Priest 2008), initial focus group results in Canada and the US confirm that nanotechnology does not generally engender parallel reactions (Priest and Fussell 2006). This is the case outside of, as well as within, North America; Burri and Bellucci (2008) analyze focus groups on nanotechnology conducted in the UK and find participants there generally optimistic as well, although desirous of more information about risks. While future events are unpredictable, little available evidence suggests much public concern to date. Most quantitative survey-based attitudinal studies conducted to date also support the idea that the climate of public opinion for nanotechnology is generally neutral or positive. The first widely cited attitude survey for nanotechnology was that by Bainbridge in 2002. This study revealed generally positive expectations for potential benefits and not much concern over risks, but it was based on a volunteer Internet sample that was probably unrepresentative and potentially biased in a pro-technology direction. However, in 2004 Cobb and Macoubrie conducted a national random telephone survey of over 1500 US adults, which also revealed a generally positive opinion climate, and in 2005, Gaskell et al. presented survey evidence that, at the time, 50% of US adults thought nanotechnology would improve our way of life, while Europeans were somewhat less optimistic (at 29% but with a majority responding “unknown”). Similarly, Currall et al. (2006) determined on the basis of a random sample of over 500 U.S. individuals that nanotechnology occupied a fairly neutral position between the most and least risky of 43 other technologies. Data reported in 2006 from a US-Canada telephone survey indicated that 46% of respondents in the US and 39% in Canada think nanotechnology “will improve our quality of life in the next twenty years,” compared to the 29% in the Gaskell et al. study


25

asked a roughly similar question in the UK (Priest 2006). The fact that US scientists worry more about some risks than do members of the public (Scheufele et al. 2007) also suggests a positive public-opinion climate. More recently, other research has suggested—perhaps not surprisingly—that respondents’ values are the most important determinant of their attitudes toward nanotechnology (Kahan et al. 2007). 1.1. Media “framing” Despite the fact that nanotechnology has not met much negative public reaction, the possible effects of media accounts of nanotechnology are of interest in a context in which considerable effort has been expended to predict and sometimes prevent negative public reactions. Media “framing” of issues surrounding technology has become the explanation (and often the scapegoat) for many public reactions. Media framing effects also interest those seeking a better theoretical understanding of media’s role in forming public opinion. However, the usefulness of framing as a theoretical concept has become diluted by the broad range of understandings and definitions that it has been used to cover. Described by Tuchman (1978) as an artifact of the way newswork is done, the concept of media frames has been variously developed by many other scholars, including those in speech communication (e.g., by Entman, [1993] who emphasized selectivity), in sociology (e.g., by Goffman [1959, 1974], who is generally recognized as among the first to use this term, and later on by Gamson and Modigliani [1989], who emphasized frames as “packages” for messages), and in linguistics (e.g., by Lakoff and Johnson [1980], who emphasized metaphorical elements and related terminological choices). Framing can sometimes also refer to cognitive categorizations, although in psychology the term “schema” (Graber 1988) is used in this way (see Priest 1995 for discussion). In contemporarily media scholarship, the term almost always refers to some characteristic of a news story or other account of an event or issue rather than the reaction or interpretation of a reader or viewer, but just which characteristics the term refers to are not consistent and are sometimes unclear. Further, while the term “framing” often refers to the specific elements that go into a news story (or not), or in some cases the actual process of choosing them, these elements are not just piled up at random to create the news. The idea of framing has also been connected to the narrative structure of journalistic stories (Shanahan and McComas 1999), as well as to active attempts by public relations practitioners and other advocates to present issues in a particular light by emphasizing some aspects and arguments over others (Scheufele 1999, Snow et al. 1986). These uses connect the concept of framing to theories of narrative and argumentation that are generally concerned with larger units of analysis (entire stories), rather than narrower elements such as specific terms. At the other end of the spectrum, some framing studies focus on smaller units rather than larger ones. In highly influential work, Tversky and Kahneman (1981) showed how the framing of quantitative risk information in a single sentence can influence preferences among choices in a decision-making context. And in the context of scientific controversies, framing is sometimes used informally to refer to the strategic choice of a particular term to describe something, such as the use of the term “Frankenfood” to refer to foods from genetically modified crops in order to crystallize opposition, or the term “therapeutic cloning” in attempts to introduce a positive spin to accounts of human cloning research in medicine. In such contexts, the term itself often

26


seems to be blamed for (or credited with) the ensuing public reaction, an association many media scholars view as an oversimplification. A focus on the effects of discrete, smaller-scale elements on individual reactions tends to ignore the broader interpretive context (the news story in which the element is embedded, the general climate of public opinion, or the broader cultural context). Thus the social is reduced to the psychological in studies that seek to find the power of framing in the presentation to individual respondents of small-scale individual elements, and the potential explanatory power of the socially embedded character of both frames and framing devices (means used to create a frame) is overlooked. News producers and news consumers generally share a culture in which particular frames make a particular kind of sense; these dynamics are not easily captured by isolating the influences of smaller-scale variables on individual people. By now, it should be obvious that almost anything can constitute a “frame,” making it a term whose intuitive appeal and popularity may have diluted its analytical usefulness beyond salvation. Continuing attention to the concept reflects ongoing scholarly—as well as political or strategic—interest in the relationship between the way information is presented, and the ways in which that information is likely to be interpreted. However, broader cultural context very much matters to this question and should not be overlooked in the search for framing effects. The present study explores reader responses to news stories on a selection of nanotechnology topics. It uses an operationalization of framing based on varying information or argument order while holding the actual content constant, thereby changing the emphasis without changing the information. This might best be described as an “information order frame,” but we refer to it here as simply an “order frame.” We also make use of the concept of “schema,” the interpretation—operationalized as the thematic categorization—of a story by a particular reader. Schemas are presumed to reflect various frame elements—including information order—but potentially can also reflect a variety of other factors that reside with the reader, not with the message or story, ranging from attitudes to prior knowledge to personality variables to the perceived climate of opinion, plus other factors related to both the message and the reader, such as the salience of the topic, or the impact of quoted spokespersons. Previous research by one of the authors demonstrated that “schema categories” are better predictors of perceived risk than order frames alone (Hornig 1992). We also introduce the concept of membership in one of several “attitudinal communities,” in part to simplify an otherwise very complex set of relationships, but also as a way of thinking about audience members as belonging to divergent groups, thus tying our exploration of frames and schemas to the nature of pluralistic societies rather than characteristics of individuals operating in isolation. These three ideas (order frames, schemas, and attitudinal communities) are explored as predictors of three multidimensional dependent variables: (1) the reader’s interest in and engagement with a story; (2) the level of perceived risk associated with a technology; and (3) the level of perceived value associated with the technology. (A fourth element involving the reading experience was also included as a check on whether the articles consistently sustained reader interest.) Figure 1 illustrates the way these elements are assumed to be related and constitutes the model we explore in the rest of this article.


27

Figure 1. Conceptual model underlying this study.

1.2. Framing emerging technologies Many technology-oriented framing studies consist entirely of content analysis of media coverage of the technology in question (Marks et al. 2007, Stephens 2005, Anderson et al. 2005, Ten Eyck and Williment 2004, Priest and Ten Eyck 2003, Nisbet et al. 2003, Coleman 1996, Einsiedel 1992) or of other relevant documents such as policy statements (Levidow 1997). The most thoughtful of these studies understand framing as a reflection of culture, not just an influence on public opinion; they recognize that not only can framing influence people’s understanding of a subject, but framing itself arises from the understandings of others (e.g., those of journalists and their sources), even where not consciously or “strategically” chosen. However, many such studies nevertheless make broad general assumptions—often implicit—about how media framing might affect news consumers, while providing little or no direct evidence of audience response. Even those framing studies that incorporate public opinion data often fail to establish a clear link between the two. Scheufele and Lewenstein (2005) argue, specifically for nanotechnology, that media consumption is related to public perceptions and that framing is likely to be important; however, their survey-based approach did not actually test alternative frame conditions. Frewer et al. (2002) establish that increased media reporting about risks associated with genetically modified food produces measurable attitude changes, but whether this constitutes a “framing effect” or not is subject to interpretation. Their study again linked survey results with media characteristics. Work by Lee et al. (2005) suggests that science-related media consumption might account for much of the vari-

28


ance in attitudes among US respondents, but it did not address possible framing effects per se. Many such studies assume that media do have important effects, in most cases effects believed to act through framing, but they provide only indirect evidence. Few studies have directly investigated actual framing effects on audience perceptions of technology-related issues using experimental methods, although some such studies do exist (e.g., Hornig 1990, Corbett and Durfee 2004). One of the few published experimental studies of framing’s effects on audience perceptions of nanotechnology is Cobb (2005), in which the author notes that there are reasons to expect framing effects to be limited but also that early opinions about a complex technology might be malleable. This framing experiment embedded in a survey found that inclusion of risks in a message increased respondents’ perceptions of risk and that inclusion of benefits produced a somewhat more positive response. Again, the interpretation depends on the definition of “frame.” Schutz and Wiedemann (2008) found no effect of benefit framing (this time defined as type of benefit suggested, rather than benefits’ presence or absence) on risk perception for nanotechnology, but they revealed a statistically significant effect for “size of enterprise” (large multinational versus small or medium company). Their results would appear to suggest trust in social actors, a factor that regularly arises in risk communication and perception research, is more important than benefit frames. In short, the potential, sometimes predicted, effects of the framing of nanotechnology in news reports have not been fully explored. Better understanding these was a main goal for the present study. We chose to explore just one type of frame—what we have here called order frames. Given the mixed evidence from other studies and the problematic nature of the definition of a media frame, we wanted to “back up” to a simple concept of frame that would allow us to evaluate its contribution to perception in a straightforward way and compare it to the contribution of pre-existing general attitudes and opinions. We sought to understand framing from a perspective in which the influence of cultural preconditions on frames is recognized, alongside the influence of frames on subsequent attitudes and interpretations. We also wanted to include the concept of schema, an element we conceptualize as distinct from frame, in this work. Our operationalization of framing in terms of information order reflects our assumption that the traditional “inverted pyramid” style of news writing puts important information first; thus, varying information order should influence interpretations of story emphasis independent of story content. We acknowledge that this choice hardly exhausts the possible definitions of frame, but provides a starting point for exploration of a “bigger picture” in which the roles of attitudes and schemas are accounted for as well. We fully acknowledge that manipulations of information content, as well as other variations in story structure, might create different effects, even though we have doubts about whether all of these should be called “framing” effects. Further, the most important effects are likely to be reflective of longer-term exposure to whole streams of discussion involving many messages, as cultivation theory (Gerbner et al. 1986) argues. However, information order struck us as a practical choice because it allows us to clearly separate at least one type of framing consideration from the conceptually distinct idea of content manipulation. The four frames presented information about ethical, legal, and other social risks; physical risks to health and environment; benefits; and regulatory status in a systematically varied order. To explore results across a range of nanotechnology-related developments, four different story topics were also chosen, consisting of a


29

nanotechnology example in the areas of food, energy, medicine, or electronics, respectively. We felt that nanotechnology would be a particularly fruitful set of technologies on which to base this study because it is an area where public opinion is still emerging and many people do not yet hold strong fixed opinions, nor is there any clear evidence as yet that these opinions are polarized. Thus if there are effects from prior attitudes, order frames, or schema categorization processes, we should be able to see them here more easily than if we were studying older technologies about which more people have had opportunities to develop fully formed opinions. 1.3. Attitudinal communities We introduce the concept of “attitudinal communities” to refer to the idea of commonalities in general attitudinal orientation relevant to a given type of issue (here, attitudes relevant to science and technology). While parallel to the concept of “interpretive community” (Lindlof 1988), which highlights the ways in which different audiences (as communities of culture or belief) may respond differently to messages, “attitudinal communities” as we use this term do not necessarily involve a shared geographical, subcultural, or experiential foundation (although they might). Rather, we mean “attitudinal community” to refer to groups of individuals characterized by commonalities of attitudinal orientation, whether or not we know the source of those commonalities. An attitudinal community, then, is a group of people who share key attitudes— here, attitudes toward science, technology, information sources, and other relevant authorities—as identified by straightforward, statistical cluster-analysis techniques. Whether members of particularly attitudinal communities tend to interact with other members is a subject for future research, but if so, this might constitute an argument for seeing them as true interpretive communities. In other words, the idea that attitude groups derived through statistical analysis can be “mapped” directly onto real-world social groups is not assumed and remains to be established. Nevertheless, the concept of attitudinal communities is not only theoretically useful but helps simplify the analysis and presentation of a complex data set, and we use it here as a tool to help clarify and explain how preexisting attitude sets (which we believe likely reflect socially meaningful distinctions) influence the interpretation of media representations. Building on previous work by one of us (Priest 2005, 2006), we investigate the relationship between clusters of preexisting attitudes, especially those involving science/technology and related sources of authority; news frames for nanotechnology that stress (through information order) either benefits, physical risks, societal risks, or regulatory uncertainties; and reactions to news stories in terms of perceptions of risks, benefits, ethics, value for cost, and overall desirability of adopting a variety of nanotechnology applications. We also analyze relationships with additional outcome variables involving interest and engagement with respect to the story material itself. Our “attitudinal communities” are based on attitudinal clusters we identified using the SPSS two-step cluster routine to group pre-test variables that seemed likely predictors of post-exposure reactions. These pre-test variables were derived, in turn, from previous research on technological risk (Priest 2008), attitudes toward governance (Priest 2005, Gaskell et al. 2005) and authority (Priest 2006), and risk information seeking and processing (sometimes called RISP research) (Griffin et al. 1999, Kahlor et al. 2006).

30


Because our subjects were 62 university students, we make no claims at all that the “communities” we identified were exhaustive of those that exist in the broader society, nor even typical of them. Rather, in this exploratory work we have been more concerned with “proof of concept”—that is, with validating the general usefulness of our approach—than producing a definitive list of relevant groupings that might exist in a more general population. Our goal is to demonstrate how attitudinal community membership might matter, rather than necessarily to characterize the full range of attitudinal variation in the broader society. In systematically exploring the relationships among membership in a particular attitudinal community, schema categories, and reactions to nanotechnology news frames, we found only quite limited, mostly non-significant, framing effects to exist, based on our “conservative” definition. What framing effects we did observe are markedly less consistent and less robust than the effects of pre-existing values and attitudes, clustered to indicate attitudinal communities. The choice of nanotechnology example (whether in the area of food, energy, medicine, or electronics) also had little effect on our results, in comparison to schema categorization or attitudinal community membership. Our discussion then returns to consideration of the nature of the frame conditions and whether less “conservative” (more dramatic) frame contrasts might produce other results, as well as whether longer-term framing effects might possibly be more important than those observed here. Our evidence argues for remembering the contribution made by societal attitudes alongside that of media representations as predictors of short-term effects.

2. Methods Data were collected from students attending a medium-sized public university in the western U.S. who were recruited from an undergraduate journalism and media studies program. Subjects were invited by their class instructors, who provided the students with extra credit for participating in an online study about recent scientific developments. Interested volunteers were told to contact the research coordinator by email. Participants were then systematically assigned (the initial survey link was randomly chosen) to one of thirty-two web links that connected them to a unique survey treatment (four topics x four frames x two regulation choices). Sixty-two students, of whom 68% were female and 32% male, completed the survey, with an average age of 21-22; 54% of the subjects were Caucasian, 26% were of mixed race, 8% were AfricanAmerican, and 5% were Asian or Asian-American, with the rest declining to respond. The survey was composed of three parts: 14 attitudinal pre-test questions, presentations of four news articles for each topic followed by 22 post-test reaction questions for each article, and a short demographics section.2 The pre-test questions evaluated subjects’ general attitudes with respect to science and technology, governance and ethics, social and economic conservatism, and trust in scientific, political, and religious leadership. Participants then read four nanotechnology newspaper articles. Each subject was given four articles—using one “order frame” condition for each of the four topics—in order to generate a larger dataset for analysis. Each article concerned a specific nanotechnology application or topic (human health, electronics, solar power, or food) and placed one of four specific message segments in initial order (that is, used an order frame emphasizing benefits, physical risks, social risks, or regulatory status). All of the mate2

Contact the authors for complete questionnaire and examples of test articles used.


31

rial in the articles was initially based on actual news reports and/or press releases, but was recombined and edited to meet the conditions of the experiment. After reading each individual article, each subject was then asked 22 questions about the article and the technology described. Twenty-one of the questions covered topics related to evaluation of the technology, as well as levels of interest and engagement with the story. The twenty-second question initially served as a manipulation check to evaluate the subject’s perceptions of each article’s emphasis; following exploratory analysis, this question was re-conceptualized as representing schema categorizations and analyzed as an intervening variable. Each complete survey thus included a rotating set of four articles, each with a different topic and frame, so each participant read articles on all four topics using all four frames (but only one story about each topic). After reading and responding to all four of their assigned articles, the subjects then answered a short demographics section that recorded age, gender, ethnicity, and religiosity as categorical variables.3 Following initial analysis that indicated no visible topic order effects (i.e., no apparent effects of topic order resulting in different reactions to those stories presented first, second, third or fourth), reactions to each article were treated as separate cases for a total of 248 separate cases generated by the 62 subjects. The specific choices of topic and the creation of order frames had been informed by earlier pilot study results in which we had found the food topic chosen in that earlier work—which had described the use of nanoparticles in everything from beer bottles to a drink for toddlers—to create relatively strong reactions among our college student subjects, who seemed to find this application risky, unethical, and lacking benefits, and to feel that it should not be adopted. Fearing the article might be overly sensational, we replaced it for this experiment with what we felt was a more neutral article (concerning nanoparticles used in food packaging only). Our medical topic (drug delivery) also generated strong pilot study responses but generally in an opposite direction. Pilot study subjects seemed to find this technology safer, more ethical, and more worth society’s investment, and they felt it should be adopted. We could find no sensationalism or obvious “hype” in the test article, however, so we attributed the reaction to the subject matter rather than its presentation and kept this article as the medical example for the study reported here. The framing conditions used in our pilot tests had consisted of rotating three paragraphs only for each topic to create an article discussing physical risk first, social risk first, and benefits first, respectively. Half the pilot articles had included a discussion of regulatory status and half did not. Pilot results showed that mentioning regulatory issues in the articles seemed to alter subject reactions, but the results were mixed and difficult to interpret. The study reported here elevated consideration of regulatory status to a fourth order frame. We used both a regulation condition and a “not regulated” 3

Because religiosity has been associated with reactions to a number of technologies, including stem cells (Liu and Priest 2009) and nanotechnology (Brossard et al., in press) we used an independent samples ttest comparing regular worshipers (choices 1, 2, or 3 above) with others who attend irregularly or not at all (4, 5, or 6). We found no significant differences on 18 of the 21 post-test variables. The only significant differences were for items involving maintaining focus (p