Science Communication-2009-Schäfer-475-505

Science Communication
Volume 30 Number 4
June 2009 475-505
© 2009 SAGE Publications
From Public Understanding 10.1177/1075547008326943
http://scx.sagepub.com
to Public Engagement hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
An Empirical Assessment of
Changes in Science Coverage
Mike S. Schäfer
Free University of Berlin, Germany
Science communication is said to have changed in the past decades. It is

widely assumed that science is no longer merely transported and translated
by the mass media to a passive audience, but “medialized”: Many authors
believe that scientific issues are discussed extensively in the mass media
nowadays, that these discussions are plural in its participants and in the argu-
ments used, and that the issues at stake are evaluated controversially. It is still
unclear, however, if this change applies to all science topics or only to some.
The article at hand argues that science issues from different epistemic cul-
tures can be expected to be “medialized” to different extents, and analyzes
mass media coverage on stem cell research, human genome research, and
neutrino research to underline this claim. The findings show that the
described change only applies to some issues, and that further differentiation
of the concept of “medialization” is necessary.
Keywords: medialization; public understanding of science; epistemic cultures;

content analysis; mass media; stem cell research; human genome
project; neutrino research
I n the past decade, a change occurred in the relationship between science

and the public. On the one hand, this change manifested itself in norma-
tive descriptions of how science communication should be structured, for
example in programmatic documents from political institutions and from
science administration. These documents describe the change in a variety
of ways: as a shift from “Public Understanding of Science” toward “Public
Author’s Note: Address correspondence to Mike S. Schäfer, Department of Sociology, Free

University of Berlin, Garystrasse 55, 14195 Berlin, Germany; e-mail: mike.schaefer@fu-berlin.de
475
Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

476 Science Communication
Engagement with Science and Technology” (Science, 2003b, p. 49), as a

shift in focus from the “deficits” in the “scientific literacy” of the “lay”
public toward a “dialogue model” (Durant, 2003) and toward an increas-
ingly more “open” (Buysse, 2007) and “egalitarian” (Weingart, 2005, p. 23)1
communication about science. Science communication is no longer seen
as merely a vehicle to increase acceptance amongst the public by simply
transporting or translating science for the audience, as it was since the late
1980s (for overviews see Gregory & Miller, 1998; Wynne, 1995). Instead,
the recent change signifies a departure from this—rather unsuccessful and
empirically faulty (see e.g., Irwin & Wynne, 1996; Miller & Pardo, 2000;
Peters, 2000; Pfister, Böhm, & Jungermann, 1999; Wynne, 1992)—approach.
Although the Public Understanding of Science (hereafter, “PUS”) concept
undoubtedly still has its followers, newer programmatic and normative
documents in many countries highlight the need to discuss science with the
general public. This shift has been advanced with financial support for
alternative types of science communication, such as consensus or stake-
holder conferences, public discussions, or science shops (e.g., Dietrich &
Schibeci, 2003; Goven, 2003; Joss & Bellucci, 2002; Leydesdorff & Ward,
2005; Schibeci, Harwood, & Dietrich, 2006).
Apart from this normative aspect, however, the change in science com-
munication is also seen to have a theoretical and empirical component,
which will be the main focus of this article: It is widely assumed in the lit-
erature that not only normative models but also de facto mass media com-
munications about science have changed. For example, Peter Weingart
(2001, 2002, 2003, 2005) claims that science pervades more and more soci-
etal fields and that scientific heuristics, arguments, and results are increas-
ingly relied on in fields as varied as political decision making, professional
sports, or obstetrics. At the same time, he states that science itself is “tighter
coupled” (Weingart, 2002, p. 703) to and increasingly influenced by other
societal realms, most important, by politics, economics, and the media.
This article focuses on the coupling between science and the media,
which Weingart labels “medialization” (e.g., 2001, p. 19, 252; 2005, p. 12),2
and particularly on the assumed, significant change in mass media cover-
age on science in the recent past.3 The first section of the article will out-
line three dimensions of this perceived change in science coverage. The
second section presents the case that an empirical comparison of media
coverage on different science issues could prove helpful to substantiate and
specify the claims of “medialization.” This section also makes the argument
that a comparison of three science issues from different epistemic cultures
is particularly well-suited for such an analysis. In the third section, the data

Schäfer / From Public Understanding to Public Engagement 477
and methods are introduced. Results are presented in the fourth section and
are summed up and discussed in the fifth and final section.
Medialization of Science?
Peter Weingart first introduced the term “medialization” to the literature,

but the process of change described as such and its basic characteristics are
found in the writings of many scholars (e.g., Bucchi, 1998; Felt, 1993; Felt,
Nowotny, & Taschwer, 1995; Kaube, 2006; Lewenstein, 1995b; Limoges,
1993; Neidhardt, 2002, 2004; Nelkin, 1992, 1995b, 1995a; Peters, 2000, 1994).
In their respective publications, three basic and widely concurrent dimensions
of change in the media’s coverage of science are usually diagnosed.
The first dimension pertains to the quantitative side of science coverage.
It is often stated that coverage has extensified, that is, that science and
science-related issues have become a major media issue. Although Dorothy
Nelkin shows that topics, such as NASA research, space exploration, or
nuclear research have been prevalent in the mass media over the past
decades (Nelkin, 1995b,), many authors argue that science coverage has in
fact increased over time: A large variety of science magazines and TV
shows have emerged (e.g., Long, Boiarsky, & Thayer, 2001; Milde &
Ruhrmann, 2006), and it has become typical to see “news about science and
technology . . . featured in front page articles” (Nelkin, 1995b). Similarly,
it has been diagnosed that “[n]ever before such a flurry of images about
science has been made public,” and that “never before has access to science
been so easy” (Felt et al., 1995, p. 244). In Weingart’s (2005) words,
science has become a fundamentally “public issue” and the “object of con-
stant media observation” (p. 28; cf. also Neidhardt, 2002).
Apart from this allegedly more extensive presence of scientific issues in
the mass media, there is a second and a third dimension of change. These
dimensions are not concerned with the amount of coverage, but rather with
the nature and content of such coverage. The second dimension argues that
science coverage has become increasingly pluralized. Several authors argue
that although the PUS concept was still the dominant, normative idea of
science communication, the mass media largely presented scientific issues
as “science du chef,” that is, seen from the scientists’ perspective, both
adopting their ideas of what is relevant and newsworthy and also accepting
their predominantly positive evaluations of the research in question
(Bucchi, 1998, p. 2; see also Kepplinger, Ehmig, & Ahlheim, 1991;
Kohring, 1997). It is now perceived, however, that the mass media no

longer function merely as “transmitters” or “translators” of science to the

broader audience (Braun, Maasen, Weingart, & Wink, 2002, p. 7). Science
coverage has instead become more “egalitarian” (Weingart, 2005, p. 23)
and “diversified” (Maasen, 2002, p. 12) both in terms of actors and per-
spectives. Actors other than scientists have started to appear in the media
when it comes to science matters (e.g., Guschker, 1998; Peters, 1994; van
den Daele, 1996), and that they have done so to such an extent that it led
some authors to diagnose a general underrepresentation of scientists in the
mass media (cf. Gunter, Kinderlerer, & Beyleveld, 1999).
A third dimension, closely connected to the described pluralization
process, is the common perception that media coverage on science has
become more controversial. It is argued that science nowadays has to legit-
imize its usefulness for society in media coverage more so than before (cf.
Gregory & Miller, 1998; Limoges, 1993, p. 274; Weingart, 2003). Science
journalists are said to increasingly perceive themselves as watchdogs
instead of advocates (cf. Kohring, 1997; Nelkin, 1995a). This results in an
“increasingly intense and acrimonious scrutiny of methods, results, and
even personal integrity” (Ungar & Bray, 2005, p. 7), which some authors
relate to an assumed erosion of scientists’ status as experts and to a “dra-
matic loss of scientists’ authority” (Braun et al., 2002, p. 2; cf. Maasen,
2002, p. 4). Accordingly, more and more controversies about science are
taking place in the media:
The increased scale of science has raised questions of social priorities and
research costs; the growing importance of research in human biology has
raised concerns about ethical implications; the many reports on scientific
fraud have increased public mistrust; and the continuing incidents of techno-
logical risk have turned individual events into generic problems. (Nelkin,
1995b, p. viiif; see also Nelkin, 1992, p. ix; 1995a, p. 450)
The changes in mass media coverage of science, or “medialization,” can

thus be described in three dimensions that are widely agreed on in the
respective literature:
1. Extensiveness: Science is said to be increasingly represented in the mass

media.
2. Pluralization: Media coverage on science is said to be increasingly
diverse in terms of actors and content.
3. Controversy: Media coverage on science is seen as increasingly controversial.

Problematic about these dimensions, though, is that their point of refer-

ence remains somewhat hazy throughout the literature. When describing
the three trends, authors often ascribe them to “science,” thus indicating a
rather general trend. In the few cases for which the point of view is illus-
trated, the examples do not usually seem to follow any given taxonomy
(e.g., Felt et al., 1995; Nelkin, 1995b; Weingart, 2001, 2005). As a result,
the respective descriptions are imprecise as to whether medialization and its
three dimensions are applicable to all fields of scientific research, or if they
only apply to some of them.
The existing theoretical and empirical literature cannot solve this prob-
lem. When looking at the broader field of theories that might be applied
here, any assumptions about universal medialization (one which would
apply to all fields of science) become doubtful: First, theories of societal
differentiation, such as Niklas Luhmanns general systems theory (e.g.,
Luhmann, 1995), stress that all societal fields in modern societies,
including science, are becoming ever more specialized and complex.
Differentiation theory suggests that science increasingly distances itself
from society. From that, one might conclude that medialization would only
apply to a few research fields, which would then not be symptoms of a gen-
eral trend but deviations from it. Second, theories of the public sphere and
the mass media stress that the media’s fundamental selectivity forces it to
drastically reduce social complexity when presenting issues to a broader
audience. Hence, they can only select a few cases from every societal realm
for coverage. This would also lead to the belief that medialization may only
apply to a few, rather exceptional cases. Both theories lead to the assump-
tion that medialization does not affect all fields of science, but only a few
of them, albeit the theories cannot say which fields are likely to be medial-
ized and which ones are not.
This question as to which fields of science are affected by medialization
cannot be answered with existing empirical evidence, either. This is by no
means due to a lack of relevant studies, which are both manifold and diverse.
Topics range from stem cell research (e.g., Leydesdorff & Hellsten, 2005;
Nisbet, Brossard, & Kroepsch, 2003) to cloning (e.g., Holliman, 2004;
Neresini, 2000), cold fusion (e.g., Lewenstein, 1995a; Simon, 2001), astron-
omy (e.g., Kiernan, 2000), and nanotechnology (e.g., Science Communication,
volume 27, special issue 4). Existing studies also analyze different national
cases, such as the United States (e.g., Priest, 2001; Ten Eyck & Williment,
2003), the United Kingdom (e.g., Anderson, Allan, Petersen, & Wilkinson,
2005; Bauer, Durant, Ragnarsdottir, & Rudolphsdottir, 1995), Italy (e.g.,
Bucchi & Mazzolini, 2003; Neresini, 2000), Germany (e.g., Kohring &

Matthes, 2002; Milde & Ruhrmann, 2006), Colombia (e.g., Parales-Quenza,

2004), Nigeria (e.g., Ekanem, 2003), and India (e.g., Dutt & Garg, 2000).
Although the variety of these studies is certainly impressive, it is hardly
possible to use them to judge which research fields are medialized, that is,
which fields are covered extensively and show signs of pluralization and
controversy. Most of the analyses are single-case studies, focusing on the
coverage of one issue in a certain national context and within a given
(mostly short) time span.4 These studies usually select a single research
topic that has had (and often specifically because it has had) extensive
media coverage. This method of case selection, however, tends to include
only medialized topics, whereas analyses of other cases remain absent from
the literature.
Another problem in judging whether a topic has been medialized is that
these case studies differ significantly in multiple ways—in their national
context, in the time spans analyzed, in their data, in their sampling method-
ology, in the research methods applied, and in the general questions they try
to answer. Hence, similarities and differences they show cannot be traced
back to specific contextual variables. An example may help illustrate this
problem: Guy Cook et al. (Cook, Robbins, & Pieri, 2006) use linguistic and
discourse analysis of newspaper coverage to show that the British debate on
genetically modified food is extensive and highly controversial. In contrast,
Alison Anderson et al. (2005) used a quantitative content analysis of 18
newspapers to demonstrate that British coverage on nanotechnology is
rather small and tends to highlight “possible benefits to be derived from
nanotechnology” (p. 216). It remains unclear as to whether these different
findings are a result of the different topics or of the different research
designs. The Cook group attempted to reconstruct a controversy they
assumed to exist on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by analyzing
newspapers that they expected to be be the strongest advocates for and
opponents of GMOs. The researchers then dissected rather subtle traces of
controversy from this material (Cook et al., 2006, p. 9). In contrast,
Anderson et al. (2005, p. 204) chose a representative newspaper sample and
focused on the basic characteristics of their coverage on nanotechnology.
These methodological differences most likely account for some of the vari-
ation shown between the coverage on GMOs and nanotechnology, and
there is almost no way of knowing how large the influence of these differ-
ences was. Problems like these even multiply when, in addition to method-
ological and methodical variation, the countries and time spans analyzed
differ between studies.

As a result of these research differences, the existing case studies are hard
to compare with one another. This may be one reason why no comprehen-
sive meta-studies that would provide a systematic overview of the existing
literature exist.5 Nevertheless, another research design can be developed that
could answer some of the questions posed here: An empirical comparison of
media coverage on different fields of scientific research, conducted within
the same context in terms of time and space, employing the same methods
and using the same basic data for all cases would serve to keep major con-
founding variables constant. Such studies, so far, do not exist.6
The article at hand attempts to provide such an analysis by asking, which
fields of science does “medialization” empirically apply to? Along the
three dimensions of medialization presented above, this article will empir-
ically scrutinize mass media coverage on different strands of scientific
research, although at the same time keeping the context of analysis (i.e.,
time and space/national context), the methodological and methodical basis
(i.e., data, sampling method, and analytical approach), as well as the scien-
tific importance of the respective fields of science constant.
Comparing Epistemic Cultures: Case Study Selection
To answer the research question posed above and avoid the shortcom-
ings of many existing case studies, it was necessary to select a theoretical
model that allowed for the purposeful selection of scientific fields that are
likely to receive differing degrees of media attention, that is, to be medial-
ized differently. The “epistemic cultures” model, whose main features
were laid out by Karin Knorr Cetina (1998), filled this requirement. In
accordance with authors like Pierre Bourdieu (e.g., 1975), Michael
Gibbons et al. (1994), or Helga Nowotny et al. (Nowotny, Scott, &
Gibbons, 2001), Knorr Cetina has argued that science is fundamentally
disunited and contains various “epistemic cultures” in which knowledge is
produced and warranted in different ways (Knorr Cetina, 1998). In her
study, she provided an in-depth empirical analysis of two fields of science
that are “differently placed on the map of disciplines” (p. 4) and thus
characterized by different ways of knowledge production and epistemic
cultures.
• The first field is high-energy physics (or “particle physics”), which is

usually described as a “closed universe” (Knorr Cetina, 1998) in which
the research employs its own autonomous theories such as the ‘standard

model,’ and refrains from interdisciplinary cooperation. This field favors

the “communitarian science of physics” (Knorr Cetina, 1998, p. 4) and is
“segregated from society on many counts” (Nowotny et al., 2001, p. 100).
Conducted in large, isolated facilities, particle physics is seen by several
scholars as an almost nonempirical science (Knorr Cetina, 2002, p. 79)
that analyzes “a world of objects separated from the environment”
(Nowotny et al., 2001, p. 98), whose main goal is the construction of
abstract signs (Knorr Cetina, 1998).
• The second, very different scientific field is molecular biology. This field
is described as collaborating closely with other scientific disciplines,
making use of their theoretical and empirical knowledge. Moreover, mol-
ecular biology is shown as maximizing contact to the empirical world
outside the lab (Knorr Cetina, 2002; Nowotny et al., 2001), analyzing its
objects and testing its findings in more “natural” and practical settings
(Böschen, 2004, p. 147; Nowotny et al., 2001, p. 99). This field aims to
generate data that can also be used outside molecular biology and, also,
outside the science labs altogether (Knorr Cetina, 2002).
Knorr Cetina’s (2002) study is of particular interest here in connection

with the works of Stefan Böschen, who hypothesizes that epistemic cul-
tures differ not only in terms of knowledge production but also in their
“rather different connection points to the public sphere” (Böschen, 2004,
p. 148; 2003, p. 121). Böschen (2004) argues that issues such as high-energy
physics belong to an epistemic culture he labels as the “Republic of
Science” (p. 143), which is characterized as rather autonomous within the
scientific field and also segregated from society at large. Topics stemming
from this epistemic culture, Böschen assumes, are likely to be discussed in
“restricted publics” (“geschlossene Gestaltungsöffentlichkeiten,” Böschen,
2004), that is, in arrangements dominated by scientists and scientific ratio-
nality. Using Böschen’s approach, one can therefore assume that no medi-
alization would occur for fields such as high-energy physics. Instead, they
would have to be seen as likely to be treated in science-dominated publics,
that is, very much along the lines of the “PUS” communication model. In
contrast, issues such as molecular biology stem from an epistemic culture
that Böschen (2004) calls “Science in Context” (p. 143), which is linked to
both other scientific fields and to other societal spheres (economic, med-
ical, political, etc.). According to Böschen (2004), such issues are likely to
be negotiated in “open publics,” or offene Gestaltungsöffentlichkeiten, in
which scientists do not play a dominant role; instead, other actors, critical
perspectives, and nonscientific rationalities also have a voice (p. 146). In
other words, these are the kind of issues likely to be “medialized.”

Böschen (2004) does not substantiate these hypotheses satisfactorily

with empirical evidence. His analyses merely serve to illustrate his ideas,
and he describes only a few cases without laying out his data or methods.
Nevertheless, his hypotheses seem relevant for this article in that they pro-
vide a framework to outline differences in medialization for a variety of
topics and can even state how these differences might be structured when
comparing high-energy physics and molecular biology.
Accordingly, the model of epistemic cultures will serve as this article’s
foundation for case selection. Topics from high-energy physics and molec-
ular biology will be compared, because there is an expected difference in
their mass media treatment and thus in their “medialization.”
Another principle that will be applied for case selection is derived
from methodological considerations. According to the seminal work of
Przeworski and Teune (1970),7 comparative research can rely on two basic
research designs: “most-different” and “most-similar.” Most-different
designs compare two contrasting cases and are therefore likely to produce
major differences (here, in medialized coverage on science). Most-similar
designs analyze similar cases and therefore tend to show small differences
and maybe interesting parallels between cases. Because these designs have
complementary strengths, both will be employed here. This study will
compare issues from different epistemic cultures (most-different cases) in
addition to comparing two cases within one of the epistemic cultures
(most-similar cases). The cases to be compared include two from an epis-
temic culture likely to be medialized and one from an epistemic culture for
which no medialization is expected. The resulting cases are therefore two
research fields from molecular biology and one from high-energy physics.
The first field from molecular biology is stem cell research, that is, the
production of and research on embryonic or adult human stem cells. Stem
cells are biologically interesting because, depending on the biological
milieu they are planted into, they are able to develop into all (“totipotency”)
or many (“pluripotency”) human cell types. Stem cells are therefore seen as
potential cures for many diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and Type
1 diabetes. The problematic aspect of this research is that no reliable way
has so far been found to extract stem cells from embryos without struc-
turally destroying or “killing” the embryos.8 Stem cell research goes back
to 1998, when stem cells were first extracted from human embryos (for
more information about this research see Nature, 2006).
The second issue from molecular biology is human genome research,
that is, the sequencing of human DNA. Because the makeup of proteins and
tissue is based on DNA, the genome plays an important role in determining

phenotypic characteristics of humans and also their likelihood to acquire

genetic diseases. The international Human Genome Project (starting in the
late 1980s, with German participation from 1995 on), and the U.S.
company Celera Genomics (established in 1998) both began their attempts
to sequence human DNA and determine the exact sort order of its base
pairs. Although both competitors had the same scientific aims, they differed
in their methodical approaches and also in their plans on how to use the
data. The Human Genome Project tried to make the genome data accessi-
ble to the public and for researchers, whereas Celera Genomics’ business
plan was based on patenting and licensing the data and making commercial
use of it. Both sides presented purportedly complete genome sequences
before this work officially ended in 2003 (for more information, see Cook-
Deegan, 1995; Davies, 2001; Olson, 2002).
The third topic, neutrino research, comes from high-energy physics.
This research concerns particles whose existence was theoretically
assumed in the 1930s and experimentally proven in the 1950s. The exis-
tence of these specific particles is important for physics because their
existence is necessary for the standard model of particle physics to work.
The neutrino particle’s existence, as well as other neutrino characteristics,
such as their oscillation from one “flavor” to another, still merits scien-
tific attention. For example, large-scale neutrino detectors such as the
Japanese Super-Kamiokande III were constructed only recently, and
current endeavors with German participation include the IceCube or
ANTARES projects (for more information, see Bahcall, 2002; Mannheim,
2000).
These three topics have advantages beyond their representation of dif-
ferent epistemic cultures and of “most similar” and “most different” com-
parisons. One additional advantage is that they can be considered as
roughly equal in their relevance within the natural sciences—all three top-
ics have had similar rankings in Science journal’s annual “Breakthroughs
of the Year.”9 The relevance of the selected fields should therefore not bias
the results of the analysis. Another advantage is that the time span in which
major scientific activity for these three issues took place is largely similar,
ranging from the mid-1990s until 2003. Third, given that the analysis in
this article is limited to German mass media coverage (see below), these
cases have the advantage that within the country, significant amounts of
scientific research exist for each (cf. Komitee für Astroteilchenphysik,
2006; German Human Genome Project, 2002; Wobus et al., 2006).

Data and Methods
The following analysis will be based on German print media coverage

only. This is due to methodological and pragmatic considerations. As the
aim of the study is to compare mass media coverage of several scientific
issues, the national context of analysis should be kept constant. Therefore,
analyses were restricted to one country, although it would certainly prove
interesting to later expand the scope of analysis. Germany was chosen partly
for pragmatic reasons, but also because the country has a highly developed
public sphere and a rich history of public debates about science (e.g., Görke,
Kohring, & Ruhrmann, 2000; Weisker, 2003). The reason that print media
were selected for analysis is that print media seem to offer a more elaborated
and thorough view on many topics than do other media. Print media cover-
age is also usually available in electronic archives and easier to analyze than
something like TV coverage (for which, in addition to the textual level,
sounds and moving images would also have to be coded).
For German print media, largely overlapping multiyear time spans
were chosen for analysis. Although the methodological aim was to keep
the time period of analysis constant, some concessions had to be made
because of issue characteristics. Media coverage on stem cell research
was analyzed over a 7-year time span starting in 1997 (1 year before
human stem cells were first isolated) until 2003 (when the first foreign
stem cells were imported into Germany). Human genome research cover-
age spans from 1994 (1 year before the German Human Genome Project
started its work) until 2003 (when genome sequencing was officially
completed). For the case of neutrino research, the same 10-year time span
was analyzed, from 1994 (1 year before the Nobel price was awarded to
Fred Reines for discovering and experimentally proving the existence of
neutrinos) until 2003.10
To reconstruct German print media coverage about the three topics, the
respective articles were analyzed via qualitative frame analysis and quanti-
tative content analysis.11 The contents of each debate were first explored via
qualitative analysis. Using a heterogeneous corpus of texts not only from the
mass media, but also from stakeholders, nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), Internet discussion fora, and so on, the basic arguments about the
three analyzed fields of science were reconstructed and grouped in so-called
“frames.” Frames can be understood as ideal-type arguments used to inter-
pret certain topics—in this case, the three research fields (cf. B. Scheufele,
2003; Benford & Snow, 2000; D. A. Scheufele, 1999; Entman, 1993;

Gamson & Meyer, 1996; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Snow, Rochford,
Worden, & Benford, 1986). Four basic frames were distinguished:
• The scientific frame includes descriptions of scientific “facts,” evaluations

of the scientific and medical implications of the research, and discussions
about basic scientific norms and rights, such as freedom of research and
research funding.
• The political frame refers to debates about the external (political and/or
judicial) regulation of science. This frame also includes assessments of
public participation in such regulation.
• The economic frame consists of both microeconomic aspects, such as the
research’s impact on companies and businesses, as well as macroeco-
nomic aspects, such as impacts on stock markets or national economies.
• The ethical, legal, and social (hereafter referred to as “ELSI”) frame
includes discussions about science’s view of human nature, possible dis-
crimination based on the respective research, and property and patenting
issues.
These four frames were then used in a quantitative content analysis to

code the statements of different stakeholders. Mass media coverage from two
German quality broadsheets, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, was used. These two newspapers were chosen because
they are the supraregional quality dailies with the largest circulation in
Germany (e.g., IVW, 2000) and are widely read by elite groups, decision
makers, and journalists (Fuchs & Pfetsch, 1996; Reinemann, 2003). Thus, the
stories in these newspapers are likely to influence decision making and are
known to provide topics for other media (cf. Wilke, 1999). This is particularly
true for science issues, because most smaller, regional newspapers do not
have their own science desk and often use the quality dailies for orientation
in these matters (cf. Haller, 1996). Using the CD-ROM archives of these
newspapers, all articles were selected that contained one of several keywords
proven to be valid and effective in a preliminary study (Schäfer, 2007).
The selected articles were then coded on various levels. First, the article
itself served as a unit of analysis in that its date of publication, newspaper
section, headline, author, and so on, were coded. Second, the various speak-
ers within the article were coded, including their name, affiliation, nation-
ality, and sex. Third, the evaluations of the respective research topics as
expressed in the statements of the actors were coded. Fourth, the interpre-
tations of the three topics used in the actors’ statements were coded into the
already described “frames.”12

Findings
In the following section, it will be examined whether stem cell research,

human genome research, and neutrino research are medialized, that is, if
mass media coverage on these three topics is (equally) extensive, plural in
its actors and frames, and controversial in its evaluations.
Stem Cell Research: A Case of Medialization

Between 1997 and 2003, the two newspapers published 2,234 articles
that referred to stem cell research. Over the entire 7-year period, this equals
an average of 319 articles per year, or, roughly, one article every day these
newspapers were available. Hence, stem cell research was one of the most, if
not the most, strongly covered science issue in the German press, comparable
only to the debate on nuclear energy in the 1970s (cf. Roose, 2008) and
certainly one of the biggest media topics overall in Germany’s recent past
(cf. Junold, 2006). In other words: Mass media coverage on this topic was
highly extensive (see Table 1).
Furthermore, coverage on stem cell research was strongly pluralized.
This holds particularly true for the distribution of articles among different
newspaper sections and among the actors who made statements about the
research. First, only 12% of articles on stem cell research were published
in the Science section; most appeared in the Politics (33%) and Culture
sections (“Feuilleton,” 26%). This corresponds to a second fact that a wide
variety of actors had a say in the media on stem cell research. The strongest
actor group was politicians from various institutions (42%). This group
includes the executive and legislative branch, people from various min-
istries, and from all significant German political parties. A further 12% of
actors in the media were made up of representatives from civil society, such
as churches, NGOs, disability and patient groups, and so on, which Jürgen
Habermas labels the political “periphery” (Habermas, 1998). Accordingly,
the institutionalized center and the periphery of politics accounted for the
majority of all actors. In turn, fewer than one in five statements (18%) came
from a natural scientist, mostly from stem cell researchers or closely related
colleagues. Another 16% was made up of actors from science administration
(8%), social scientists and their colleagues from arts and humanities (5%),
and representatives from the economy (3%).
In terms of issue interpretation, that is, of the frames that were used to
interpret stem cell research, media coverage was less pluralized. Scientific
facts or evaluations including medical applications dominated, accounting for

Table 1
Overview of Mass Media Coverage on Stem Cell Research
488
Entire Time Span Early Stage Latency Main Stage Late Stage
(1997-2003) (1997-1999) Stage (2000) (2001) (2002-2003)
Extension
Articles per annum (average) 319 8 188 1,164 408
Pluralization (%)
Distribution of articles in newspaper sections
Science 11.7 64.9 22.1 4.6 13.7
Politics 33.1 8.1 32.9 38.8 26.3
Culture (“Feuilleton”) 26.0 2.7 19.3 25.1 32.5
Economy and business 4.0 2.7 2.9 5.2 2.8
Other 25.1 21.6 22.9 26.2 24.6
Share of actors of all statements
Natural and biosciences 18.3 68.4 28.7 15.0 19.9
Social sciences, arts and humanities 4.6 — 9.3 3.8 5.5
Science administration 7.,5 10.5 7.8 7.6 6.6
Politicians 41.9 5.3 19.4 49.9 35.5
Economy 3.2 — 1.6 3.8 2.3
Civil society 12.4 5.3 18.7 11.4 13.3
Other actors 10.9 10.5 14.7 8.6 16.8
Distribution of different frames
Scientific–medical frame 61.9 68.8 59.7 63.2 58.7
Political frame 22.8 18.9 25.8 21.4 25.9
Economic frame 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.9
ELSI frame 12.0 9.0 11.9 12.4 11.5

Controversy (%)
Share of evaluations of all statements 41.3 29.4 43.7 48.3 24.2
Of that: positive evaluations 46.7 40.0 39.0 46.7 53.7
Of that: ambivalent evaluations 28.4 46.7 41.0 27.8 18.7
Of that: negative evaluations 24.9 13.3 20.0 25.5 27.6
Note: ELSI = ethical, legal, and social implication.

62% of all interpretations. Even representatives from political and civil

society, when they made statements in the mass media, did not stick to their
own fields of expertise, such as political interpretations, but often acted as
counterexperts: They engaged in the discussion of basic scientific facts (for
example, how promising are adult compared with embryonic stem cells?
How “pure” are stem cells that could be imported from foreign countries?
etc.), evaluated the field of stem cell research within science itself (e.g., is it
a scientific breakthrough? In what institutions should this research take
place?), and discussed medical possibilities. Political interpretations, focus-
ing on existing and possible new legislation that would affect the research,
made up 23% of framing. ELSI implications accounted for another 12%, and
mainly discussed when to pinpoint the beginning of human life and whether
the legal protection guaranteed to all by the first paragraph of the German
constitution also applied to these early stages of human development.
Finally, coverage on stem cell research was rather controversial. Almost
half of all actors (41%) in the media used their statements to positively or
negatively evaluate the research or to discuss both positive and negative
aspects to adopt an ambivalent position. Although positive evaluations
dominated (47%), the amount of critical statements was relatively high
(25%). Media coverage on stem cell research is thus the most controversial
topic among the three analyzed here (see Figure 1).
In sum, the descriptive results show that stem cell research seems to
exhibit all signs of medialization. This finding has to be somewhat adjusted
when looking at the development of coverage over time. Coverage on this
research, as coverage on many issues, is not stable over the years, but fol-
lows an “issue-attention cycle” (Downs, 1972). Based on the number of
articles published over time, four stages of coverage can be distinguished
(see Figure 1). When analyzing these phases separately, one can see that the
extensiveness, pluralization, and controversy of coverage change over time.
During the early stage of coverage (from 1997 to 1999), stem cell
research was seldom mentioned and mainly interpreted from a scientific
perspective. Articles appeared mostly in the Science sections of the news-
papers, presented the viewpoints of natural scientists, and used scientific
facts and interpretations. Some signs of pluralization could already be
found at this stage, as evidenced by the presence of some political actors.
However, there were only minor signs of medialization at this stage. In the
latency (2000) and main stages (2001), coverage became drastically more
extensive, pluralized, and controversial. Articles were published more often
in other sections, such as politics, the hegemony of scientific actors effec-
tively ended (in that political representatives and civil society started to

Figure 1
Amount of Articles on Stem Cell Research by Quarter
400
Early Stage Latency Stage Main Stage Late Stage
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
dominate the debate), and evaluations of the topic became more critical. In
the final stage of coverage (from 2002 to 2003), medialization cooled down
again, although it did not return to the characteristics of the early stage.
To summarize, mass media coverage on stem cell research can be seen
as corresponding quite well to the expectations of a “medialization” of
science coverage—albeit with some minor reservations: Coverage was
highly extensive, strongly pluralized, and rather controversial, especially
during its main stages in 2000 and 2001.
Human Genome Research: A Case of Partial Medialization

Articles on human genome research published between 1994 and 2003
were included in this analysis. During this period, 1,428 articles appeared
in the two newspapers, which translates into an annual average of 143 arti-
cles, or one article every other day (see Table 2). Accordingly, coverage on
this issue can also be seen as very extensive, it was one of the most widely
covered science issues in recent years in Germany. Although human
genome research received less coverage than stem cell research, it was still
more widely covered than other science topics like the cloning of Dolly, the
sheep, in 1997 (cf. Weingart, Salzmann, & Wörmann, 2006).
Beyond that, coverage on the research was somewhat pluralistic,
although significantly less so than stem cell research. On the one hand, the

Table 2
Overview of Mass Media Coverage on Human Genome Research
Entire Time Span Early Stage Latency Stage Main Stage Late Stage
(1994-2003) (1994-1999) (mainly 1999) (2000-2001) (2001-2003)
Extension
Articles per annum (average) 143 44 108 624 128
Pluralization (%)
Science 20.5 40.2 35.2 13.6 20.2
Politics 10.5 12.6 5.6 11.7 7.9
Culture (“Feuilleton”) 31.8 12.1 20.4 34.0 42.6
Economy and business 14.0 13.6 12.0 16.6 8.8
Other 23.2 21.5 27.0 24.1 20.5
Natural and biosciences 40.1 44.7 44.3 35.9 50.7
Social sciences, arts, and humanities 9.7 5.3 8.2 9.6 14.9
Science administration 3.2 2.6 4.9 3.0 3.4
Politicians 13.4 11.5 13.9 19.6 9.9
Economy 10.8 8.8 15.6 9.7 12.8
Civil society 9.6 7.9 6.6 10.8 4.8
Other actors 13.3 21.8 11.5 13.5 7.4
Scientific–medical frame 66.4 66.0 69.6 64.4 72.0
Political frame 8.2 9.0 6.3 8.7 6.5
Economic frame 6.6 3.0 9.1 7.1 6.4

ELSI frame 18.8 22.0 15.0 19.7 15.2
Controversy (%)
Share of evaluations of all statements 47.5 42.0 47.9 54.3 32.2
Of that: positive evaluations 47.4 55.1 43.0 45.0 53.7
Of that: ambivalent evaluations 36.1 33.1 38.7 37.1 32.9
491
Of that: negative evaluations 16.5 11.8 18.3 17.9 13.4
Note: ELSI = ethical, legal, and social.

articles about human genome research were found in many different news-
paper sections: Approximately, one third of them appeared in the Culture
section, where the decoding of human DNA was discussed, according to
one journalist, as “a new hermeneutics of society and of mankind.” Articles
also appeared in the Science (21%), Economy (14%), and Politics (11%)
sections. On the other hand, however, the ensemble of actors having a say
on the topic proved to be rather one-sided. The discussion was dominated
by supporters and beneficiaries of human genome research, mainly by nat-
ural or bioscientists (40%), by politicians from the executive branch, which
was a major sponsor of the research in Germany and elsewhere (13%), and
by economic representatives from biotech and pharmaceutical companies
or stockbrokers (11%). Representatives from civil society, churches, NGOs,
and so on, made up only 10% of all actors. Interpretations of human
genome research were also unbalanced: Even stronger than in the case of
stem cell research, they consisted of scientific and medical interpretations
(66%), discussing possible medical uses of genome data (e.g., in diagnos-
tics) and its relevance in the wider context of biology and natural science,
often labeling it as a “revolution,” “breakthrough,” or scientific “milestone”
(e.g., Nerlich, Dingwall, & Clarke, 2002). Apart from scientific and medical
interpretations, the ELSI frame was the only other significant interpretation
(19%). The main topics in this frame were the possible discrimination of
disabled people or of people with a genetic likelihood for certain diseases,
and patenting genetic data and the genome sequence. Political (8%) and
economic (7%) interpretations were minor.
Coverage on human genome research was not very controversial.
Although many statements could be found in coverage that made evalua-
tions (almost every second actor did so in his statement), they were rather
one-sided and affirmative. Almost half (47%) of the evaluating statements
were positive toward the research, 36% were ambivalent, with only 17%
critical.
Mass media coverage of human genome research can therefore be seen
as partially medialized. Although coverage was certainly very extensive,
it was only plural in some aspects, and showed a rather low degree of con-
troversy. In addition, and as seen with stem cell research, the medializa-
tion characteristics varied over time. If four stages of coverage are again
distinguished, changes in the extensiveness, pluralization, and level of con-
troversy also become visible for human genome research (Figure 2).
During the early stage, only a few articles were published on human
genome research, although the Human Genome Project had already begun
in several countries, Germany among them. Coverage was only weakly
medialized and dominated by scientific actors and interpretations. When

Figure 2
Amount of Articles on Human Genome Research by Quarter
250 Early Stage Latency Stage Main Stage Late Stage
200
150
100
50
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
coverage intensified beginning in 1999 and especially in 2000 and early

2001, the dominance of scientific–medical actors and their interpretations
decreased, and other supporters of the research, for example, from the
political–executive branch, increased their standing. In this phase, several
medialization characteristics such as the plural placement of the articles in
different newspaper sections grew stronger. Even in this stage, however,
neither a strong actor pluralization nor intensive controversy was visible.
During the entire time span, most speakers were natural and bioscientists,
most evaluations were affirmative, and most interpretations were scientific
or medical. This dominance grew even stronger again in the late stage of
coverage.
The case of human genome research is thus a case of partial medializa-
tion: Although coverage was at times very extensive and showed some
signs of medialization, such as the diverse placement of the articles, it can-
not be considered as fully medialized. Natural scientists and human
genome researchers were the main actors, the evaluation of the topic was
largely positive, and scientific and medical implications were predomi-
nantly discussed. Furthermore, medialization characteristics changed over
time and were only for a rather short period of time.
Neutrino Research: A Case of “PUS” Communication

Mass media coverage on the two biological topics was parallel in many
respects, but also showed some differences. Differences are drastically

Table 3
Overview of Mass Media Coverage on Neutrino Research
(Different Phases of Coverage Were Not
Distinguished and Are Therefore Not Presented)
Entire Time Span (1994-2003)
Extension
Articles per annum (average) 14
Pluralization (%)
Science 72.3
Politics 3.6
Culture (“Feuilleton”) 14.4
Economy and business —
Other 9.5
Natural science and physics 86.0
Social sciences, arts and humanities 3.6
Science administration 3.8
Politicians 7.1
Economy —
Civil society —
Other actors —
Scientific–medical frame 100.0
Political frame —
Economic frame —
ELSI frame —
Controversy (%)
Share of evaluations of all statements 16.4
Of that: positive evaluations 92.9
Of that: ambivalent evaluations 7.1
Of that: negative evaluations —
Note: ELSI = ethical, legal, and social.
larger, however, for neutrino research, where coverage is structured entirely

different (Table 3).
In the 10 years of coverage analyzed, only 141 articles were published
on the topic, which translates to some 14 articles per year or 1 article per
month. That means that for every article published on neutrino research, 10
were published on human genome research and even 23 on stem cell
research. Mass media coverage on neutrino research was therefore not
extensive.

Coverage was also not pluralized in any significant way. A large major-
ity of articles was published in the Science sections (72%), with the second
largest and only other significant grouping of 14% in the Culture section.
Natural scientists, mostly neutrino researchers themselves, served as the
predominant sources of information and interpretation, making up 86% of
all actors. Even more lopsided was the interpretation of the topic: Literally
all statements on neutrino research either concerned scientific facts or inter-
preted the research in scientific terms. Topics discussed included whether
neutrinos have a mass, that they are able to pass ordinary matter undis-
turbed, how they oscillate between “flavors,” and that they may be building
blocks of dark matter that make up a significant part of all matter in the uni-
verse. The relevance of the research for contemporary physics was some-
times also assessed, as neutrino research was often interpreted as important
because it is trying to solve some of the most important riddles of contem-
porary physics.
Finally, in this very small and scientifically dominated coverage, no con-
troversy was found. Potentially problematic aspects, such as its enormous
costs, that are largely paid for with tax money (cf. Schmundt, 2005) were
not discussed. Neutrino research was presented in a neutral way, with only
one in every six statements (16%) containing an evaluation. These few eval-
uations all came from neutrino researchers or related disciplines and almost
universally supported the research (93%).
Furthermore, a look at the chronology of coverage on neutrino research
at no point revealed any signs of medialization. No trends toward plural-
ization or controversy were visible. Coverage throughout the entire time
period of analysis was very similar to expert communication as it might be
found in scientific journals, except that it was simplified and semantically
translated for a mass media audience. In other words: The issue was not
medialized but “popularized” (cf. Peters, 1994), and coverage almost
entirely corresponded to the “PUS” concept of science communication.
Discussion
This article began by describing a general consensus in literature on

science communication—that the way science is communicated to the gen-
eral public has changed. Although this change also has a normative side, this
article focused on its theoretical and empirical facets. The “medialization”
(Weingart, 2001, p. 19, 252; 2005, p. 12) of science was discussed, which,
among other things, indicates a change in mass media coverage on science.
Three dimensions of this change were then distilled from the literature:

1. Extensiveness: Science is increasingly present in the mass media.

2. Pluralization: Media coverage on science is increasingly plural in terms
of actors and content.
3. Controversy: Media coverage on science is increasingly controversial.
This diagnosis of medialization, however, does not answer the question

as to whether these dimensions apply to every field of scientific research.
This is particularly problematic as alternative theoretical approaches might
lead one to believe that medialization of a particular topic is an anomaly
rather than part of a general trend. And because most existing empirical
studies focus on single cases that are strongly represented in the media, they
cannot answer the question as to which fields are affected. This article
therefore asked whether medialization in the three dimensions described
above applies equally to different fields of science.
The scientific fields for analysis were selected using Karin Knorr
Cetinas’ (1998) description of “epistemic cultures.” Stefan Böschen (e.g.,
2004) argues that different epistemic cultures are likely to be treated differ-
ently in public debates, and scientific fields were therefore chosen to repre-
sent epistemic cultures both likely and unlikely to receive medialized
coverage, allowing for a “most-different” analysis. Moreover, two scientific
fields were selected from the epistemic culture likely to be medialized in
order to facilitate an additional “most-similar” comparison. As a result, two
fields from molecular biology (stem cell research and human genome
research) were analyzed along with one field from high-energy physics
(neutrino research). Although the issues compared differed, the time and
space of analysis, the data used, the research design, the methods applied,
and the scientific relevance of the respective issues were kept constant
(Table 4).
The findings showed different types of mass media coverage on the three
science issues. Coverage on stem cell research was medialized to a large
extent and in all three dimensions: Coverage was extensive, plural in its
actors and interpretations, and at least partially controversial. Coverage on
human genome research also proved to be extensive, but not as plural in its
actors and interpretations, and less controversial. This case was therefore
considered as partially medialized. Neutrino research, in sharp contrast, did
not exhibit any signs of medialization. Instead, coverage corresponded
closely to the “PUS” model of science communication.
These differences show that claims of medialization, that is, of a change
in mass media coverage leading to more extensive, plural, and controversial
coverage, have to be specified and put into perspective. First, such changes

Table 4
Summary of the Empirical Findings
Stem Cell Human Genome Neutrino
Research Research Research
Extensiveness Very strong Strong No

Pluralization Strong Somewhat No
Controversy Somewhat Not very No
do not apply equally to all scientific fields. Second, medialization can occur
to varying degrees; its three dimensions—extensiveness, pluralization, and
controversy—seem to be independent of one another and do not necessar-
ily form one coherent syndrome. Instead, they apply to certain topics to
varying extents. Third, even for medialized cases such as stem cell research,
significant differences in coverage can be shown over time. Highly exten-
sive, plural, and controversial coverage is usually concentrated in a rather
short period of time, whereas medialization characteristics in the early and
late stages of coverage are less pronounced. Such patterns where found in
both the medialized cases and correspond to studies describing “issue-
attention cycles” (e.g., Downs, 1972; Lehman-Wilzig & Cohen-Avigdor,
2004; Peters & Hogwood, 1985). As the term cycle indicates, the medial-
ization of issues such as stem cell research might be revitalized and the
period of coverage analyzed here does not necessarily mark the end of the
cyle. It would be interesting to see future longitudinal studies focus on such
cycles of reoccuring media attention. Generally, additional comparative
studies between different fields of science are needed and should go beyond
the analysis presented here to include TV, radio, and Internet communica-
tion, different countries, and other fields of research, maybe also from the
social sciences, arts, and humanities.
Apart from these descriptive conclusions showing differences in issue
medialization, an explanation of the demonstrated differences would be
interesting. It is beyond the scope of this article, however, to lay out a
detailed explanation, which would require a multimethodical research
approach beyond mere analysis of media coverage. Such a study would
have to include aspects such as the agenda building efforts of various actors
(Which resources do these actors, e.g., certain scientific institutions, have?
Are they at all interested in using them on a certain topic? etc.), the selec-
tion routines of journalists (Which desks select topics and write stories
about science? Why do they select certain topics and not others? Which

news factors apply to science and are they different from those of other top-
ics? etc.), and the “cultural resonance” of specific scientific issues (Which
issues correspond to broader cultural images or schemes? Which issues can
be attached to existing framings, and therefore mobilize existing pressure
groups and actors? etc., see Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 5; Gamson &
Wolfsfeld, 1993).
These questions cannot be dealt with appropriately here. Despite the
limited nature of the research undertaken for this analysis, however, some
explanatory remarks can be made that could be taken up in future studies.
The clear difference in medialization between the two biological cases and
the neutrino research case indicate that epistemic cultures do seem to cor-
relate with different levels of medialization. After all, the differences found
cannot be ascribed to the scientific importance of the issues or to their rel-
ative importance in Germany—because both these aspects were kept con-
stant. Nevertheless, although epistemic cultures seem to be connected to
medialization, this is true to varying extents, as the differences between the
two biological issues show. It is necessary to further substantiate und illus-
trate the concrete connection between epistemic cultures and certain kinds
of media coverage. Such an analysis should focus on the micro level of con-
crete actors and their interactions and lay out in detail what different epis-
temic cultures mean at this level. It could be the case that research
stemming from interdisciplinary epistemic cultures is more likely to be
medialized, because it touches on different fields of knowledge and creates
epistemological uncertainties and needs for interpretation that also impinge
on mass media coverage. It is also possible that epistemic cultures that gen-
erate data by working in natural research environments and that are quickly
and easily applicable outside science itself will be intensively medialized,
because they have an immediate impact in the lives of both journalists and
the general public. This, again, might be especially true if the science issue
impinges on existential questions of human life and the human condition,
as the biosciences do. These questions, however, must be dealt with in
future studies.
Notes
1. This quote has been translated into English for this publication, as have several other
quotes from German books and articles.
2. Weingart uses the German term “Medialisierung,” which can be translated in a variety
of ways into English. As Simone Rödder (in press) convincingly argues, the English term
“medialization” seems most appropriate.

3. Another equally important facet of medialization is scientists’ adaptation to mass

media routines and to the media’s modes of selection (Weingart, 2005, p. 28; 2003, p. 122;
2001; see also Neidhardt, 1994; 2004, p. 313; Nelkin, 1995b). This aspect will not be the focus
of this article, but has been dealt with in other studies (e.g. Bucchi, 1998; Rödder, in press).
4. Apart from case studies focusing on single national cases, several analyses compare
different countries’ media coverage on science (e.g., Bauer & Gaskell, 2002; Durant, Bauer, &
Gaskell, 1998; Gaskell & Bauer, 2001; Gerhards & Schäfer, 2006). These studies are also
unable to answer the questions posed in this article, as they focus on national differences rather
than issue differences.
5. The closest publications to a meta-study are (sometimes annotated) bibliographies of
the research field, for example, Dunwoody, Baldrica, and Long (1993).
6. Studies by Sigrid Graumann (2002) and Peter Weingart et al. (2006), at least, compare
media coverage on different bioscientific issues, such as human genome sequencing, stem cell
research, and preimplantation genetic diagnostics. In doing so, however, these studies focus
exclusively on issues that were strongly present in the mass media, and miss out on issues that
were absent from it. There are also analyses that compare coverage on single science issues
with coverage on nonscientific issues, but these are not helpful in the context of this article
(e.g., Baker & Stokes, 2006; Kitzinger & Reilly, 1997).
7. Przeworski and Teune (1970) are referring to research comparing cultures and/or
nation states. However, it seems equally possible to apply their methodological propositions
to research comparing different issues.
8. A very recent study seems to indicate that in the future, there may be ways of generat-
ing potent human stem cells without destroying the embryo (Chung et al., 2008). These results,
however, were published after the time span that is analyzed here, and also have to be vali-
dated further.
9. These annual rankings list what the editors of Science consider to be the 10 most impor-
tant breakthroughs in the natural sciences during the last year. They cover all areas of the nat-
ural sciences and can therefore be interpreted as rough indicators for the relevance of certain
fields of research within the natural sciences. The three topics chosen for analysis here all
ranked very well in these lists: Human genome research was first place in 2000 and third place
in 2001; the sequencing of (plant or animal) “model organisms” ranked fifth in 1998, third in
2002, and tenth in 2003. Stem cell research took first place in 1999, fifth in 2000, seventh
in 2003, and third in 2004. Neutrino research ranked fourth in 1998, third in 2001, and second
in 2002 (Science, 2004, 2003a, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998). Also, Nobel prizes were
awarded for neutrino research in 1988, 1995, and 2002 (Nobel Foundation, 2006).
10. The decision to analyze a shorter time span for stem cell research does not influence most
aspects of the following analysis. Most measures that will be employed later (e.g., the distribution
of articles over newspaper sections, actors, evaluations, and frames) are relative measures that
are not influenced by the number of articles analyzed and, therefore, can still be compared
across different issues.
11. The method employed here, particularly frame analysis, is quite elaborate and difficult
to adequately describe in the context of a short article. See Schäfer (2007) for a detailed
description.
12. Articles were coded by five different coders. In the early stages, both intercoder and
intracoder reliabilities were tested, with satisfactorily results. The reliability of coding—
calculated as the means of coding correlation between every two coders—ranged between 0.7
and 1.0.

References
Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of nanotechnolo-
gies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27, 200-220.
Bahcall, J. N. (2002). Proceedings of neutrino 2002, xxth international conference on neutrino
physics and astrophysics. Nuclear Physics B, 118, 77.
Baker, D. L., & Stokes, S. D. (2006). Comparative issue definition in public health: West Nile
virus, mad cow disease in blood products, and stem cell research. Journal of Comparative
Policy Analysis, 8, 1-23.
Bauer, M., Durant, J., Ragnarsdottir, A., & Rudolphsdottir, A. (1995). Science and technology
in the British press, 1946-1990. London: Science Museum.
Bauer, M., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2002). Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview
and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
Böschen, S. (2003). Wissenschaftsfolgenabschätzung: Über die Veränderung von Wissenschaft im
Zuge reflexiver Modernisierung. In I. Schulz-Schaeffer & S. Böschen (Eds.), Wissenschaft in
der Wissensgesellschaft (pp. 193-219). Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Böschen, S. (2004). Science assessment: Eine perspektive der demokratisierung von wis-
senschaft. In S. Böschen & P. Wehling (Eds.), Wissenschaft zwischen Folgenverantwortung
und Nichtwissen. Aktuelle Perspektiven der Wissenschaftsforschung (pp. 107-182).
Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the
progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14, 19-47.
Braun, K., Maasen, S., Weingart, P., & Wink, R. (2002). Forschungsfeld: Kontroverses Wissen
im Öffentlichen Raum: Instrumente und Arenen der Diskursivierung. Basel, Switzerland:
Expertise im Rahmen der BMBF-Förderinitiative Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft.
Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media. Alternative routes in scientific communication.
London & New York: Routledge.
Bucchi, M., & Mazzolini, R. G. (2003). Big science, little news: Science coverage in the
Italian daily press, 1946-1997. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 7-24.
Buysse, D. (2007). Scientists, get talking . . . research*eu, 2007, 29. Retrieved October 7,
2008, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu/54/article_5429_en.html
Chung, Y., Klimanskaya, I., Becker, S., Li, T., Maserati, M., Lu, S.-J., et al. (2008). Human
embryonic stem cell lines generated without embryo destruction. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 113-117.
Cook, G., Robbins, P. T., & Pieri, E. (2006). Words of mass destruction: British newspaper
coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and nonexpert reactions. Public
Understanding of Science, 15, 5-29.
Cook-Deegan, R. (1995). The gene wars. Science, politics and the human genome. New York:
W. W. Norton.
Davies, K. (2001). Cracking the genome. Inside the race to unlock human DNA. New York:
Free Press.
Dietrich, H., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Beyond public perceptions of gene technology:
Community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Understanding of Science,
12, 381-401.
Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. Public Interest, 28,
38-50.

Dunwoody, S., Baldrica, C., & Long, M. (1993). Annotated bibliography of research on mass
media science communication. Madison, WI: Center for Environmental Communications
and Education Studies.
Durant, J. (2003, October 13-17). From deficit to dialogue. Paper presented at the Neue Wege
in der Kommunikation von Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit, Munich, Germany.
Durant, J., Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (1998). Biotechnology in the public sphere. A
European sourcebook. London: Science Museum.
Dutt, B., & Garg, K. C. (2000). An overview of science and technology coverage in Indian
English-language dailies. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 123-140.
Ekanem, I. A. (2003). Communicating science information in a science-unfriendly environ-
ment: The experience of Nigeria. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 203-209.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43, 51-58.
Felt, U. (1993). Science meets the public: a new look at an old problem. Public Understanding
of Science, 1993, 285-290.
Felt, U., Nowotny, H., & Taschwer, K. (1995). Wissenschaftsforschung. Eine Einführung.
Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.
Fuchs, D., & Pfetsch, B. (1996). The observation of public opinion by the governmental sys-
tem (Discussion Paper FS III 96-105). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.
Gamson, W. A., & Meyer, D. S. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In D. McAdam, J. D.
McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political
opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 275-290). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear
power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
Gamson, W. A., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. In
R. J. Dalton (Ed.), Citizens, protest, and democracy (Vol. 528, pp. 114-125). Series: Annals
of American Academy of Political and Social Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gaskell, G., & Bauer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Biotechnology 1996-2000. The years of controversy.
London: Science Museum.
Gerhards, J., & Schäfer, M. S. (2006). Die Herstellung einer öffentlichen Hegemonie.
Humangenomforschung in der deutschen und der US-amerikanischen Presse. Wiesbaden,
Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
German Human Genome Project (Ed.). (2002). Progress report 1999-2002. German Human
Genome Project. Berlin, Germany: German Human Genome Project, Scientific Coordinating
Committee.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The
new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary soci-
eties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Görke, A., Kohring, M., & Ruhrmann, G. (2000). Gentechnologie in der Presse. Eine interna-
tionale Langzeitanalyse von 1973-1996. Publizistik, 45, 20-37.
Goven, J. (2003). Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: Democracy and de-
problematization. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 423-440.
Graumann, S. (2002). Situation der Medienberichterstattung zu den aktuellen Entwicklungen
in der Biomedizin und ihren ethischen Fragen. Berlin, Germany: Institut Mensch Ethik und
Wissenschaft/Max-Delbrück-Centrum für Molekulare Medizin.
Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (1998). Science in public. Communication, culture, and credibility.
New York: Plenum.

Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., & Beyleveld, D. (1999). The media and public understanding of
biotechnology. A survey of scientists and journalists. Science Communication, 20, 373-394.
Guschker, S. (1998). Glaubwürdigkeit und Vertrauen. Akzeptanzkriterien von Expertenwissen.
In D. Lucke & M. Hasse (Eds.), Annahme verweigert: Beiträge zur soziologischen
Akzeptanzforschung. Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich.
Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and
democracy. Boston: MIT Press.
Haller, M. (1996). Defizite im Wissenschaftsjournalismus. In W. Göpfert & S. Ruß-Mohl
(Eds.), Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Ein Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis (pp. 13-21).
Munich, Germany: Paul List.
Holliman, R. (2004). Media coverage of cloning: A study of media content, production and
reception. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 107-130.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction
of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IVW. (2000). IVW-Praxis. Bonn, Germany: Informationsgemeinschaft zur Verbreitung von
Werbeträgern.
Joss, S., & Bellucci, S. (Eds.). (2002). Participatory technology assessment: European per-
spectives. London: CSD.
Junold, R. (2006). Transnationalisierung der Wissenskommunikation: Deutsche Printmedien
als Wissensüberträger im Stammzelldiskurs. In R. Wink (Ed.), Deutsche Stammzellpolitik
im Zeitalter der Transnationalisierung (pp. 101-118). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Kaube, J. (2006). Die Öffentlichkeit der Wissenschaft. MaxPlanckForschung, 2006, 15-18.
Kepplinger, H. M., Ehmig, S. C., & Ahlheim, C. (1991). Gentechnik im Widerstreit. Zum
Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Journalismus. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.
Kiernan, V. (2000). The Mars meteorite: A case study in controls on dissemination of science
news. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 15-41.
Kitzinger, J., & Reilly, J. (1997). The rise and fall of risk reporting. Media coverage on human
genetics research, false memory syndrome, and mad cow disease. European Journal of
Knorr Cetina, K. (1998). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2002). Wissenskulturen. Ein Vergleich naturwissenschaftlicher Wissensformen.
Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Kohring, M. (1997). Die Funktion des Wissenschaftsjournalismus. Ein systemtheoretischer
Entwurf. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2002). The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German
press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 143-154.
Komitee für Astroteilchenphysik. (2006). Kosmische Spurensuche. Astroteilchenphysik in
Deutschland. Ein Forschungsgebiet im Aufbruch. Karlsruhe, Germany: Komitee für
Astroteilchenphysik.
Lehman-Wilzig, S., & Cohen-Avigdor, N. (2004). The natural life cycle of new media evolu-
tion: Inter-media struggle for survival in the internet age. New Media Society, 6, 707-730.
Lewenstein, B. V. (1995a). From fax to facts: Communication in the cold fusion saga. Social
Studies of Science, 25, 403-436.
Lewenstein, B. V. (1995b). Science and the media. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen,
& T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 343-360). Thousand
Oaks,CA: Sage.
Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2005). Metaphors and diaphors in science communication.
Mapping the case of stem cell research. Science Communication, 27, 64-99.

Leydesdorff, L., & Ward, J. (2005). Science shops: a kaleidoscope of science-society collabo-
rations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 353-372.
Limoges, C. (1993). Expert knowledge and decision-making in controversy contexts. Public
Long, M., Boiarsky, G., & Thayer, G. (2001). Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science
education television: A content analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 255-269.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Maasen, S. (2002). Die gesellschaftliche Disziplinierung bio- und gen-ethischer Fragen durch
die politische Institutionalisierung von “Diskurs.” Basel, Switzerland: Expertise im
Rahmen der BMBF-Förderinitiative Politik, “Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft.”
Mannheim, K. (2000). High-energy neutrino astrophysics. Annual Review of Nuclear Particle
Sciences, 50, 679-749.
Milde, J., & Ruhrmann, G. (2006). Molekulare Medizin in deutschen TV-Wissenschaftsmagazinen.
Ergebnisse von Journalisteninterviews und Inhaltsanalysen. Medien und Kommunikationswis-
senschaft, 54, 430-456.
Miller, J. D., & Pardo, R. (2000). Civic scientific literacy and attitude to science and technol-
ogy: A comparative analysis of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada.
In M. Dierkes & C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust. The public,
science and technology (pp. 81-130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic.
Nature. (2006). Insight: Stem cells. Nature, 441, 1059-1102.
Neidhardt, F. (1994). Öffentlichkeit und die Öffentlichkeitsprobleme der Wissenschaft. In
W. Zapf & M. Dierkes (Eds.), Institutionenvergleich und Institutionendynamik. WZB-
Jahrbuch (pp. 39-56). Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum für Sozialforschung.
Neidhardt, F. (2002). Wissenschaft als öffentliche Angelegenheit. Berlin, Germany:
Wissenschaftszentrum für Sozialforschung.
Neidhardt, F. (2004). Wissenschaft als Politikum—Öffentlichkeitsbedürfnisse der Forschung
auf dem Prüfstand. In C. Eilders, F. Neidhardt, & B. Pfetsch (Eds.), Die Stimme der
Medien. Pressekommentare und politische Öffentlichkeit in der Bundesrepublik (pp. 313-
335). Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Nelkin, D. (1992). Controversy. Politics of technical decisions. London: Sage.
Nelkin, D. (1995a). Science controversies. The dynamics of public disputes in the United
States. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science
and technology studies (pp. 444-456). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nelkin, D. (1995b). Selling science. How the press covers science and technology. New York:
W.H. Freeman.
Neresini, F. (2000). And man descended from the sheep: The public debate on cloning in the
Italian press. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 359-382.
Nerlich, B., Dingwall, R., & Clarke, D. D. (2002). The book of life: How the completion of
the Human Genome Project was revealed to the public. Health, 6, 445-469.
Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell contro-
versy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8, 36-70.
Nobel Foundation. (2006). Nobel prize in physics. Retrieved September, 16, 2006, from from
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public
in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Olson, M. V. (2002). The Human Genome Project: A player’s perspective. Journal of
Molecular Biology, 319, 931-942.

Parales-Quenza, C. J. (2004). Preferences need no inferences, once again: Germinal elements

in the public perceptions of genetically modified foods in Colombia. Public
Peters, B. G., & Hogwood, B. W. (1985). In search of the issue-attention cycle. Journal of
Politics, 47, 238-253.
Peters, H. P. (1994). Wissenschaftliche Experten in der öffentlichen Kommunikation über
Technik, Umwelt und Risiken. In F. Neidhardt (Ed.), Öffentlichkeit, Öffentliche Meinung,
Soziale Bewegungen (Sonderheft 34 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und
Sozialpsychologie; pp. 162-190). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Peters, H. P. (2000). From information to attitudes? Thoughts on the relationship between
knowledge about science and technology and attitudes toward technologies. In M. Dierkes
& C. von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust. The public, science and tech-
nology (pp. 265-286). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic.
Pfister, H.-R., Böhm, G., & Jungermann, H. (1999). Die kognitive Repräsentation von
Gentechnik: Wissen und Bewertungen. In J. Hampel & O. Renn (Eds.), Gentechnik in der
Öffentlichkeit: Wahrnehmung und Bewertung einer umstrittenen Technologie (pp. 170-196).
Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.
Priest, S. H. (2001). A grain of truth: The media, the public and biotechnology. Oxford, UK:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. J. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York:
Wiley.
Reinemann, C. (2003). Medienmacher als Mediennutzer: Kommunikations- und Einflussstrukturen
im politischen Journalismus der Gegenwart (Vol. 19). Cologne, Germany: Böhlau.
Rödder, S. (in press). Reassessing the concept of mediatization of science: A story from the
Book of Life. Public Understanding of Science, 16.
Roose, J. (in press). Der endlose Streit um die Atomenergie. Konfliktsoziologische Untersuchung
einer dauerhaften Auseinandersetzung. In P. H. Feindt & T. Saretzki (Eds.), Umwelt- und
Technikkonflikte. Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Schäfer, M. S. (2007). Wissenschaft in den Medien. Die Medialisierung naturwis-
senschaftlicher Themen. Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Scheufele, B. (2003). Frames: Framing: Framing-Effekte: theoretische und methodische
Grundlegung des Framing-Ansatzes sowie empirische Befunde zur Nachrichtenproduktion.
Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49,
103-122.
Schibeci, R., Harwood, J., & Dietrich, H. (2006). Community involvement in biotechnology
policy? The Australian experience. Science Communication, 27, 429-445.
Schmundt, H. (2005, 32/2005). Lauschangriff in eisiger Finsternis. Der Spiegel, p. 123.
Science. (1998). Breakthrough of the year. Science, 282, 2157-2161.
Science. (2002). Breakthrough of the Year. Science, 298, 2296-2303.
Science. (2003a). Breakthrough of the Year. Science, 302, 2038-2045.
Science. (2003b). From PUS to PEST. Science, 298, 49.
Simon, B. (2001). Public science: Media configuration and closure in the cold fusion contro-
versy. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 383-402.

Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment
processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological
Review, 51, 464-481.
Ten Eyck, T. A., & Williment, M. (2003). The national media and things genetic: Coverage in
the New York Times (1971-2001) and the Washington Post (1977-2001). Science
Ungar, S., & Bray, D. (2005). Silencing science: Partisanship and the career of a publication
disputing the dangers of secondhand smoke. Public Understanding of Science, 14, 5-23.
van den Daele, W. (1996). Objektives Wissen als politische Ressource: Experten und
Gegenexperten im Diskurs. In W. van den Daele & F. Neidhardt (Eds.), Kommunikation
und Entscheidung. Politische Funktionen öffentlicher Meinungsbildung und diskursiver
Verfahren (WZB-Jahrbuch; pp. 297-326). Berlin, Germany: Edition Sigma.
Weingart, P. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik,
Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist, Germany: Velbrück.
Weingart, P. (2002). The moment of truth for science. The consequences of the knowledge
society’ for society and science. EMBO reports, 3, 703-706.
Weingart, P. (2003). Wissenschaftssoziologie. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
Weingart, P. (2005). Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit. Essays zum Verhältnis von
Wissenschaft, Medien und Öffentlichkeit. Weilerswist, Germany: Velbrück.
Weingart, P., Salzmann, C., & Wörmann, S. (2006). Die gesellschaftliche Einbettung der
Biomedizin: Eine Analyse der deutschen Mediendiskurse. In M.-D. Weitze & W.-A.
Liebert (Eds.), Kontroversen als Schlüssel zur Wissenschaft? Wissenskulturen in sprach-
licher Interaktion (pp. 95-112). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
Weisker, A. (2003). Expertenvertrauen gegen Zukunftsangst. Zur Risikowahrnehmung der
Kernenergie. In U. Frevert (Ed.), Vertrauen. Historische Annäherungen (pp. 394-421).
Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wilke, J. (1999). Leitmedien und Zielgruppenorgane. In J. Wilke (Ed.), Mediengeschichte der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 302-329). Bonn, Germany: Bundeszentrale für politis-
che Bildung.
Wobus, A. M., Hucho, F., van den Daele, W., Köchy, K., Reich, J., Rheinberger, H.-J., et al.
(Eds.). (2006). Stammzellforschung und Zelltherapie. Stand des Wissens und der
Rahmenbedingungen in Deutschland. Supplement zum Gentechnologiebericht. Munich:
Elsevier Akademischer Verlag.
Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and the public uptake
of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304.
Wynne, B. (1995). Public Understanding of Science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C.
Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-388).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mike S. Schäfer is a lecturer at the Department of Sociology at the Free University of Berlin.
His research interests include science communication in the mass media and in the Internet
and theories of the public sphere. Recent publications include “Wissenschaft in den Medien”
(2007, Weisbaden), “Two normative models of science in public” (in Public Understanding of
Science, in press) and “Gender Equality in the European Union” (In Sociology, in press; the
later papers are coauthored).

Science Communication-2009-Schäfer-475-505

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Communication-2009-Schäfer-475-505

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Science Communication

Science communication is said to have changed in the past decades. It is

Keywords: medialization; public understanding of science; epistemic cultures;

I n the past decade, a change occurred in the relationship between science

Author’s Note: Address correspondence to Mike S. Schäfer, Department of Sociology, Free

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Engagement with Science and Technology” (Science, 2003b, p. 49), as a

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Peter Weingart first introduced the term “medialization” to the literature,

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

longer function merely as “transmitters” or “translators” of science to the

The changes in mass media coverage of science, or “medialization,” can

1. Extensiveness: Science is said to be increasingly represented in the mass

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Problematic about these dimensions, though, is that their point of refer-

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Matthes, 2002; Milde & Ruhrmann, 2006), Colombia (e.g., Parales-Quenza,

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Comparing Epistemic Cultures: Case Study Selection

• The first field is high-energy physics (or “particle physics”), which is

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

model,’ and refrains from interdisciplinary cooperation. This field favors

Knorr Cetina’s (2002) study is of particular interest here in connection

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Böschen (2004) does not substantiate these hypotheses satisfactorily

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

phenotypic characteristics of humans and also their likelihood to acquire

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Data and Methods

The following analysis will be based on German print media coverage

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

• The scientific frame includes descriptions of scientific “facts,” evaluations

These four frames were then used in a quantitative content analysis to

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

In the following section, it will be examined whether stem cell research,

Stem Cell Research: A Case of Medialization

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Note: ELSI = ethical, legal, and social implication.

62% of all interpretations. Even representatives from political and civil

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Human Genome Research: A Case of Partial Medialization

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Note: ELSI = ethical, legal, and social.

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

250 Early Stage Latency Stage Main Stage Late Stage

coverage intensified beginning in 1999 and especially in 2000 and early

Neutrino Research: A Case of “PUS” Communication

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Note: ELSI = ethical, legal, and social.

larger, however, for neutrino research, where coverage is structured entirely

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

This article began by describing a general consensus in literature on

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

1. Extensiveness: Science is increasingly present in the mass media.

This diagnosis of medialization, however, does not answer the question

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Extensiveness Very strong Strong No

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

3. Another equally important facet of medialization is scientists’ adaptation to mass

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSIDAD DE ANTIOQUIA on February 15, 2015