Big Tobacco.
Big Oil.
Big Pharma.
Big Biotech.
Big Nanotech?
Each of these phrases are examples of frame devices, words that act like triggers in activating underlying cultural meanings.
In fact, these frame devices instantly communicate the public accountability frame: Who benefits? Who controls the science? Is this science in the public or in the private interest?
As nanotechnology climbs up the media agenda over the next decade, watch out for the "Big Nanotech" frame device. It will be a sign that interpretations of the issue are moving from a promotional emphasis on social progress and economic development to a potentially more controversy-laden emphasis on public accountability.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
To date, nanotechnology has followed a public trajectory similar to that of plant biotechnology in the United States. Relatively low levels of attention have been paid to the still nascent issue in the media, with coverage concentrated at the science and business beats. This coverage has been…
Over the past decade, issues such as fast food and obesity, organics and pesticides, genetic engineering, and factory farming have each captured their share of attention from engaged citizens and advocacy groups. Focusing events, such as the 2008 factory farming ballot initiative in California or…
The latest issue of Nature Reports Stem Cell Research runs a lengthy news analysis by Meredith Wadman on the political communication effort that ultimately killed the New Jersey stem cell bond initiative. As the analysis details, a number of framing strategies on the part of opponents helped…
ClimateGate: A now ubiquitous tagline that conveys a preferred storyline.
In a paper published earlier this year at the journal Environment, I explained how claims and arguments relative to the climate change debate can be classified and tracked using a typology of frames that are common to…
An intriguing idea, but I'm not sure I agree.
My experience in trying to write about nanotech suggests to me that it is different than the other examples you cite, because it is a means to a variety of ends in a variety of fields. So rather than being a business sector of its own, as each of your examples is, it's a technological tool being adapted by big oil and big pharma etc. to support their business sector.
That's precisely what's made it hard for me to write about nanotech for a general newspaper audience - there's "no there there."
Prediction: every other newspaper or magazine article will say, at some point: "Big Nanotech is an oxymoron, like Dwarf Mammoth, or Jumbo Shrimp..."
I'm sure you're aware of the FDA's Nanotechnology Task Force?
From the FDA website:
(Shamelessly snagged from todays Popular Science blog)