This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hornig, S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Reading risk: public response to print media accounts of technological risk

Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843-4111, USA, Center for Biotechnology Policy and Ethics

Two clearly defined positions on the evaluation of technological risks have emerged in the scholarly literature in a variety of disciplines: a `rationalist' perspective and a `subjectivist' perspective. This paper argues from a subjectivist position that differences between scientific and lay responses to risk information (as presented in media accounts) are not necessarily generally attributable to `misinterpretations' by nonscientific readers, and that the process through which lay publics interpret mass media accounts of risk is worthy of more study. Data are presented from twenty focus group discussions, involving 114 student respondents, of a range of print media articles about risky technologies. The results suggest that lay publics work with an `expanded vocabulary of risk' that takes into account a variety of issues having to do with information, implementation, regulation, and ethical considerations, as well as the cost and benefit factors traditionally weighed by risk assessors. The scientific community needs to recognize that the public expects this kind of broader accountability, and media accounts need to be written to respond to needs in these areas.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, 95-109 (1993)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/2/2/001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. A. Marks, N. Kalaitzandonakes, L. Wilkins, and L. Zakharova Mass media framing of biotechnology news Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2007; 16(2): 183 - 203. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C.-J. Lee, D. A. Scheufele, and B. V. Lewenstein Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology Science Communication, December 1, 2005; 27(2): 240 - 267. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. PETERSEN Replicating Our Bodies, Losing Our Selves: News Media Portrayals of Human Cloning in the Wake of Dolly Body Society, December 1, 2002; 8(4): 71 - 90. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. H. PRIEST Misplaced Faith: Communication Variables as Predictors of Encouragement for Biotechnology Development Science Communication, December 1, 2001; 23(2): 97 - 110. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Dutt and K. C. Garg An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian English-language dailies Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2000; 9(2): 123 - 140. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Locke Golem science and the public understanding of science: from deficit to dilemma Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 1999; 8(2): 75 - 92. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Evans and S. H. Priest Science content and social context Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 1995; 4(4): 327 - 340. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Bud Science, meaning and myth in the museum Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 1995; 4(1): 1 - 16. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. H. PRIEST Structuring Public Debate on Biotechnology: Media Frames and Public Response Science Communication, December 1, 1994; 16(2): 166 - 179. [Abstract] [PDF]