The report was released in book form yesterday in
public opinion, media, and emerging (communication) technologies
The report was released in book form yesterday in
His research deals with the public opinion dynamics surrounding controversial science, focusing particularly on the interplay among media, political actors and lay audiences.
Click here for more information about graduate education in Life Sciences Communication.
Ladwig, P., Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., & Shaw, B. (2010). Narrowing the nano discourse? Materials Today, 13(5), 52-54. (doi:10.1016/s1369-7021(10)70084-5)
Dahlstrom, M. F., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). Diversity of television exposure and its association with the cultivation of concern for environmental risks. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 54-65. (doi:10.1080/17524030903509709)
Corley, E. A., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). Outreach gone wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences. The Scientist, 24(1), p. 22.
Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. (doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041) Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T., Dalrymple, K. E., & Ho, S. S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the US. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 91 - 94.Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T., Hillback, E., & Guston, D. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(12), 732 - 734.
Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A. (2007). The future of public engagement: The facts never speak for themselves, which is why scientists need to “frame” their messages to the public. The Scientist, 21(10), 38-44.
Scheufele, D. A. (2007). Nano does not have a marketing problem … yet. Nano Today, 2(5), 48.
Scheufele, D. A. (2007). Opinion climates, spirals of silence, and biotechnology: Public opinion as a heuristic for scientific decision making. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, and T. C. Nesbit (Eds.), The public, the media, and agricultural biotechnology: An international casebook (pp. 231-241). Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.
Lee, C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 819-834.
Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20-25). London: The Wellcome Trust.
Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Five lessons in nano outreach. Materials Today, 9(5), 64.
Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667.
Lee, C. J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies - Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240-267.
Scheufele, D. A. (2005). The “scientific citizen” and nanotech: Chasing an unrealistic ideal? Small Times.
2010 All Rights Reserved nanopublic.
1 comments:
I agree on your national legislation program.
Professor, I'd propose an international convention banning certain class of nanoweapons and non-proliferation of MNT capabiliy.
Post a Comment