Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators

Nature Nanotechnology volume 9, pages 841–844 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The American public remains unfamiliar with nanotechnology despite more than a decade of investment and development1. Nanoscientists have an opportunity to contribute to public conversations about their work, and its potential implications, through their engagement with lay audiences and media professionals2. Indeed, the leaderships of many professional scientific organizations have placed a renewed focus on the public communication of science, particularly in the light of drastic changes in the information landscape and the increasing politicization of many technological and scientific issues3,4. However, we have a limited understanding of nanoscientists' perceptions and behaviours regarding their participation in public communication. Here, we report survey results that provide an examination of the public communication behaviours of nanoscientists affiliated with the National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), an integrated partnership of US research institutions designed to facilitate nanoscale research and development. Our results suggest that nanoscientists are relatively frequent public communicators who commonly associate their communication efforts with positive impacts on their professional success. We also identify a handful of characteristics that drive nanoscientists' intentions to communicate with the public about nanotechnology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The amount of contact nanoscientists report having with media professionals and directly with lay audiences in 2008–2013 (five years).
Figure 2: Nanoscientists' evaluations of the professional impacts of their contact with media professionals and direct public engagement efforts.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 Ch 7 (National Science Board, 2014); www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/

  2. Scheufele, D. A. Nano does not have a marketing problem … yet. Nano Today 2, 48 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cicerone, R. Celebrating and rethinking science communication. In Focus 6, 1–2 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Leshner, A. I. Outreach training needed. Science 315, 161 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S. & Scheufele, D. A. The emergence of nano news: tracking thematic trends and changes in U.S. newspaper coverage of nanotechnology. Journalism Mass Comm. Q. 88, 55–75 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berube, D. M. Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. J. Nanopart. Res. 10, 23–37 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pidgeon, N., Harthom, B. H., Bryant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Siegrist, M. & Keller, C. Labeling of nanotechnology consumer products can influence risk and benefit perceptions. Risk Anal. 31, 1762–1769 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tyshenko, M. G., Farhat, N., Lewis, R., Shilnikova, N. & Krewski, D. Applying a precautionary risk management strategy for regulation of nanotechnology. Int. J. Nanotech. 7, 243–264 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Corley, E., Scheufele, D. & Hu, Q. Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 11, 1573–1585 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Scheufele, D. A. et al. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotech. 2, 732–734 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Besley, J. C. & Nisbet, M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understand. Sci. 22, 644–659 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Peters, H. P. Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public communicators. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14102–14109 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Peters, H. P. et al. Interactions with the mass media. Science 321, 204–205 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Marcinkowski, F., Kohring, M., Fürst, S. & Friedrichsmeier, A. Organizational influence on scientists' efforts to go public: an empirical investigation. Science Comm. 36, 56–80 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jensen, P. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understand. Sci. 20, 26–36 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, D. R., Ecklund, E. H. & Lincoln, A. E. Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Science Comm. 36, 81–105 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Roco, M. C. & Bainbridge, W. S. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (Kluwer Academic, 2001).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Corley, E., Kim, Y. & Scheufele, D. Leading US nanoscientists' perceptions about media coverage and the public communication of scientific research findings. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 7041–7055 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 471–499 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ouellette, J. A. & Wood, W. Habit and intention in everyday life: the multiple processes by which past behaviour predicts future behaviour. Psychol. Bull. 124, 54–74 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. Org. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc. 50, 179–211 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Besley, J. C., Oh, S. H. & Nisbet, M. Predicting scientists' participation in public life. Public Understand. Sci. 22, 971–987 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D. & Dudo, A. Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist–media interactions. Journalism Mass Comm. Q. 86, 299–314 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan 2007 (National Science and Technology Council, 2007); www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf.

  26. Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J. & Gunther, A. C. The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Comm. 33, 143–166 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dudo, A. Toward a model of scientists' public communication activity: the case of biomedical researchers. Science Comm. 35, 476–501 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, B. et al. COMPASS: navigating the rules of scientific engagement. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001552 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D. & Christian, L. M. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 3rd edn (Wiley, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bauer, M. W. & Jensen, P. The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understand. Sci. 20, 3–11 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work supported by a grant from the NSF's NNIN. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or of the NNIN.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Moody College of Communication, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 78712, Texas, USA

    Anthony Dudo, LeeAnn Kahlor, Niveen AbiGhannam, Allison Lazard & Ming-Ching Liang

Authors
  1. Anthony Dudo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. LeeAnn Kahlor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Niveen AbiGhannam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Allison Lazard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ming-Ching Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.D. and L.K. conceived and designed the survey. N.A., M.C. and A.L. curated the survey. A.D. conducted the analyses. A.D. and L.K. co-wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Dudo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (PDF 426 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dudo, A., Kahlor, L., AbiGhannam, N. et al. An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotech 9, 841–844 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.194

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.194

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing