Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between National Pride and the Scientific Success of “Others”: The Case of Polish Press Coverage of Nanotechnology, 2004–2009

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on the media representations of nanotechnology have flourished during the last decennium. However, most of the projects were focused on Western Europe and North America, especially the English speaking countries. This paper aims to move the focus towards Poland - a Central European country that has not been studied in this context before. This study looks at the frames, themes and tone used in the Polish coverage of nanotechnology between 2004 and 2009. Other issues, such as main actors in the debate or articles’ geographical focus have also been considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27(2):200–220. doi:10.1177/1075547005281472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arias AI (2004) The media coverage of nanotechnology. National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network

  3. Arnaldi S (2008) Converging technologies in the Italian daily press 2002–2006: preliminary results of an ongoing research project. Innov: Eur J Soc Sci Res 21(21):87–94. doi:10.1080/13511610802002304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arogyaswamy B, Koziol W (2005) Technology strategy and sustained growth: Poland in the European Union. Technol Soc 27:453–470. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bauer MW, Gaskell G (2002) Biotechnology: the making of a global controversy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bralczyk J (2006) Polak potrafi. Świat Książki, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  7. Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F (2012) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German Press. Sci Commun 34(1):5–29. doi:10.1177/1075547011417892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Einsiedel E (2005) In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnology among Canadian and U.S. politics. J Nanotechnol Online 1:10. doi:10.2240/azojono0110

    Google Scholar 

  9. Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. European Commission (2010a) Communicating nanotechnology. Brussels

  11. European Commission (2010b) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010 Winds of change? Burssels

  12. Fitzgerald S, Rubin B (2010) Risky society, media and power: the case of nanotechnology. Sociol Spectr 30(4):367–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Friedman S, Egolf B (2005) Nanotechnology: risks and the media. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24(4):5–11. doi:10.1177/1075547005281472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2004) Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater 3(8):496. doi:10.1038/Nmat1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goodman JR, Goodman BP (2006) Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids. Public Underst Sci 15:359–375. doi:10.1177/0963662506062468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gorss J, Lewenstein B (2005) The salience of small: nanotechnology coverage in the American Press, 1986–2004. Paper presented at the 2005 conference of the International Communication Association

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grabiec P, Kuźmicz W, Napieralski A (2009) Nanoelektronika w Polsce: Bariery, szanse i kierunki działania. In: Modelski J (ed) Analiza stanu oraz kierunki rozwoju elektroniki i komunikacji. Komietet Elektroniki i Telekomunikacji Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Warszawa, pp 72–111

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gregory J, Miller S (1998) Science in public: communication, culture and credibility. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grobe A, Eberhard C, Hutterli M (2005) Nanotechnologie im Spiegel der Medien: Medienanalyse zur Berichterstattung über Chancen und Risiken der Nanotechnologie. Stiftung Risiko-Dialog, St.Gallen

    Google Scholar 

  20. Groboljsek B, Mali F (2012) Daily newspapers’ views on nanotechnology in Slovenia. Sci Commun 34(1):30–56. doi:10.1177/1075547011427974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grönlund K, Setälä M (2007) Poltical trust, satisfaction and voter turnout. Comp Eur Polit 5(4):400–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hibino A, Nagata M (2006) Biotechnology in the Japanese media: comparative analysis of newspaper articles on genetic engineering in Japan and Europe. Asian J Soc Psychol 9(1):12–23. doi:10.1111/j.1364-2223.2006.00176.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jabłecka J, Lepori B (2009) Between historical heritage and policy learning: the reform of public research funding systems in Poland, 1989–2007. Sci Public Policy 36(9):697–708. doi:10.3152/030234209X475263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jasanoff S (2005) Design on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kjærgaard RS (2008) Making a small country count: nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Underst Sci 19(1):80–97. doi:10.1177/0963662508093090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kjølberg KL (2009) Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers — implications for public participation. NanoEthics 3:61–72. doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0053-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kulawik T (2009) Science policy and public accountability in Poland: the case of embryonic stem-cell research. Sci Public Policy 36:469–482. doi:10.3152/030234209X460999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kulawik T (2011) The Politics of Human Embryo Research in Poland. In: Robbins PT, Huzair F (eds) Exploring central and Eastern Europe’s biotechnology landscape. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 55–78

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kulve HT (2006) Evolving repertoires: nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Sci Cult 15(4):367–382. doi:10.1080=09505430601022692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Laing A (2005) A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. Cormex Research, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lara A (2008) The Polish Media Landscape. In: Terzis G (ed) European media governance: national and regional dimensions. Intellect, Bristol, pp 400–409

    Google Scholar 

  32. Maeseele PA, Shuurman D (2008) Biotechnology and the popular press in Northern Belgium - a case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretive struggle. Sci Commun 29(4):435–471. doi:10.1177/1075547008316221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mayring P (2000) Qualitative contetn analysis. Forum: Qual Soc Res 1(2)

  34. Mazurkiewicz A, Chlebus E, Dybiec H, Grzeybowska-Świerkosz B, Idzikowski B, Jurczyk M, Kossut J et al (2006) Nanotnauka i Nanotechnologia, Narodowa Strategia dla Polski. Interdyscyplinarny Zespół do spraw Nanonauki i Nanotechnologii, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nerlich B (2005) From Nautilus to Nanobo(a)ts: the visual construction of nanoscience. J Nanotechnol Online AZoM.com Pty. Ltd

  36. Nerlich B (2012) Biomilitarism and nanomedicine: evil metaphors for the good of human health? Covalence Medicine. Retrieved May 15, 2012, from http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Faith-Science-and-Technology/Covalence/Features/Biomilitarism-and-nanomedicine.aspx

  37. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96(10):1767–1778. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nisbet MC, Lewenstein B (2002) Biotechnology and the American media the policy process and the Elite Press, 1970 to 1999. Sci Commun 23(4):359–391. doi:10.1177/107554700202300401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Priest SH (2008) North American audiences for news of emerging technologies: Canadian and US responses to bio- and nanotechnologies. J Risk Res 11(7):877–889. doi:10.1080/13669870802056904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schafer MS (2010) Taking stock: a meta-analysis of studies on the media coverage of science. Public Underst Sci 1–14. doi:10.1177/0963662510387559

  41. Schaller R (1997) Moore’s law: past, present, and future. IEEE Spectr 34(6):52–59. doi:10.1109/6.591665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanoparticle Res 7(6):659–667. doi:10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Scheufele DA, Tewksbury D (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. J Commun 57:9–20. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schilling J (2006) On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: designing the process for content analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess 22(1):28–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Seear K, Petersen A, Bowman D (2009) The social and economic impacts of nanotechnologies: a literature review final report. Monash University, Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  46. Stephens LF (2005) News narratives about Nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27(2):175–199. doi:10.1177/1075547005281520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Toumey C (2005) Apostolic succession. Eng Sci 1(2):16–23

    Google Scholar 

  48. Waszak S (2011) Polish team claims leap for wonder material graphene. Physorg.com

  49. Weigold M (2001) Communicating science: a review of the literature. Sci Commun 23(2):164–193. doi:10.1177/1075547001023002005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Weingart P (2005) Die Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit der Wissenschaft. Weilerswist, Velbruck

    Google Scholar 

  51. Williams K (2005) European media studies (VII.). Hodder Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  52. Zimmer R, Hertel Rolf, Gaby-Fleur B (2008) Risikowahrnehmung beim Thema Nanotechnologie – Analyse der Medienberichterstattung. Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Author would like to thank Professor Brigitte Nerlich and Dr. Alison Mohr for their helpful advice and comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham, University Park, NG7 2RD, Nottingham, UK

    Szczepan Lemańczyk

Authors
  1. Szczepan Lemańczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Szczepan Lemańczyk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lemańczyk, S. Between National Pride and the Scientific Success of “Others”: The Case of Polish Press Coverage of Nanotechnology, 2004–2009. Nanoethics 6, 101–115 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0150-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0150-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation