Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://scx.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Science Communication can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://scx.sagepub.com/content/30/4/475.refs.html
An Empirical Assessment of
Changes in Science Coverage
Mike S. Schäfer
Free University of Berlin, Germany
475
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?
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)
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.
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.
Gamson & Meyer, 1996; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Snow, Rochford,
Worden, & Benford, 1986). Four basic frames were distinguished:
Findings
Extension
Articles per annum (average) 319 8 188 1,164 408
Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at Max Planck Society on January 26, 2011
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
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.
Extension
Articles per annum (average) 143 44 108 624 128
Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at Max Planck Society on January 26, 2011
Pluralization (%)
Distribution of articles in newspaper sections
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
Share of actors of all statements
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
Distribution of different frames
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
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
200
150
100
50
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
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 (%)
Distribution of articles in newspaper sections
Science 72.3
Politics 3.6
Culture (“Feuilleton”) 14.4
Economy and business —
Other 9.5
Share of actors of all statements
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 —
Distribution of different frames
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 —
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
Table 4
Summary of the Empirical Findings
Stem Cell Human Genome Neutrino
Research Research Research
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.
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
Communication, 12, 319-350.
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
Understanding of Science, 1993, 417-426.
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.
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
Communication, 25, 129-152.
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).