This article examines whether the nanotechnology industry is engaging in the wider social debate surrounding it, through an analysis of its online communication practices. This is an important topic to study, given the nascent nature of the technology and the concerns among proponents to avoid the backlash biotech companies faced over genetically modified (GM) crops. Applying a new web crawling tool, the study captures and codes the hyperlinks of key nanotechnology companies according to their social and technical orientation, and status as producers, disseminators, and commercializers. The links are mapped and the prominence of social and technical issues is assessed. Finally, the home pages of sites are content analyzed to contextualize the presentation of the debate. The results show that although parts of the scientific community may have accepted the case for more engagement with the social aspects of nanotech, commercial developers are more reluctant to do so, at least based on their online presence.
Ackland, R. ( 2007). VOSON system user guide [Mimeograph]. The Australian National University.
2.
Ackland, R., & Gibson, R. ( 2004, April 14-15). Mapping political party networks on the WWW. Paper presented at the Australian Electronic Governance Conference: University of Melbourne.
3.
Ackland, R., & Gibson, R. ( 2009). Hyperlinks and political party communication on the Web . (Working paper Retrieved from: http://voson.anu.edu.au/papers/hyperlinks_polcomm.pdfon10/02/10).
4.
Ackland, R., O’Neil, M., Bimber, B., Gibson, R., & Ward, S. ( 2006, 24-30 April). New methods for studying online environmental-activist networks. Paper presented to 26th International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, Vancouver, BC.
5.
Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, C. ( 2005). The framing of nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press. Science Communication, 27, 200-220.
6.
Bainbridge, W.S. ( 2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4, 561-570.
7.
Barbules, N.C., & Callister, T.A. (2000). Watch it: The risks and promises of information technologies for education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
8.
Bar-Ilan, J. ( 2004). The use of web search engines in information science research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology , 38, 231-288.
9.
Better Regulation Task Force. (2003). Scientific research: Innovation with controls (Better Regulation Task Force Report). London: Cabinet Office Publications and Publicity Team.
10.
Borg, I., & Groenen, P.J.F. (2005). .Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). London: Springer.
11.
Clark, M. ( 2009). Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe . Electoral Studies, 28, 111-122.
12.
Cobb, M.D., & Macoubrie, J. ( 2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.
13.
Cook, G., Robbins, P.T., & Pieri, E. ( 2006). Words of mass destruction: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 5-29.
14.
Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D.S. ( 2008). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility . Oxford University Press.
15.
Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. ( 2000). The citation network as a prototype for representing trust in virtual environments. In B. Cronin , & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The Web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. Metford, NJ: Information Today.
16.
Dowling, A. ( 2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties . Report issued by The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London. Retrieved from http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm 20/03/08.
17.
ETC Group. (2003). The Big Down: Atomtech-Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale. ETC Group, Winnipeg, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/171/01/thebigdown.pdf20/03/08.
18.
Foot, K.A., Schneider, S.M., Dougherty, M., Xenos, M. and E. Larson.2003. Analyzing Linking Practices: Candidate Sites in the 2002 US Electoral Web SphereJournal of Computer Mediated Communication8(4) Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue4/foot.html 20/03/2008.
19.
Gerstenfeld, P., Grant, D., & Chiang, C. ( 2003). Hate online: A content analysis of extremist Internet sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 29-44.
20.
Hansen, A. ( 2006). Tampering with nature: ‘Nature’ and the ‘natural’ in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology . Media, Culture & Society, 28, 811-834.
21.
Haythornthwaite, C., & Hagar, C. ( 2005). The social worlds of the Web. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 39, 311-346.
22.
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. (2006 ). Nanotechnology Nexus-Intersection of research, science, technology and regulation [Editorial]. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment , 12, 811-818.
23.
Ingwersen, P. ( 1998). The calculation of web impact factors. Journal of Documentation, 54, 236-243.
24.
Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards. ( 2007). An issues landscape for nanotechnology standards . East Lansing: Michigan State University.
25.
Kearnes, M., Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., & Wynne, B. ( 2006). From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture , 15, 291-307.
26.
Keller, K.H. ( 2007). Nanotechnology and society. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9, 5-10.
27.
Kleinberg, J. ( 1999). Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked world. Journal of the ACM, 46, 604-642.
28.
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, 240-267.
29.
Macnaghten, P., Kearns, M., & Wynne, B. ( 2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role social sciences. Science Communication, 27, 1-24.
30.
Macoubrie, J. ( 2006). Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15, 221-241.
31.
Mayer, S. ( 2002). From genetic modification to nanotechnology: The dangers of ‘sound science.’ In T. Gilland (Ed.), Science: Can we trust the experts? (pp. 1-15). London : Hodder and Stoughton.
32.
Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A.S., & Singer, P. ( 2003). Mind the gap: Science and ethics in nanotechnology . Nanotechnology, 14, R9-R13.
33.
Noack, A. ( 2005, September 12-14). Energy-based clustering of graphs with nonuniform degrees. Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD 2005, Limerick , Ireland.
34.
Park, H.W., Thelwall, M., & Kluver, R. ( 2005). Political hyperlinking in South Korea: Technical indicators of ideology and content. Sociological Research Online, 10. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/103/park.html 20/03/08.
35.
O’Neil, M., & Ackland, R. ( 2006, April 24-30) The structural role of nanotechnology-opposition in online environmental-activist networks. Paper presented to 26th International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, Vancouver.
36.
Roco, M.C., & W.S. Bainbridge . (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. National Science Foundation . Arlington, VA.
37.
Roco, M.C. ( 2003). Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5, 181-189.
38.
Rogers, R., & Marres, N. ( 2000). Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 141-163.
39.
Rolison, D.R. ( 2002). Nanobiotechnology and its societal implications . In M. Roco & R. Tomellini (Eds.), Nanotechnology revolutionary opportunities and societal implications (pp. 89-90). Proceedings of the EC-NSF 3rd Joint Workshop on Nanotechnology Lecce, Italy. Luxembourg : Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
40.
Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667.
41.
Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. ( 2007). Laypeople and experts-Perceptions of nanotechnology hazards . Risk Analysis, 27, 59-69.
42.
Stephens, L.F. ( 2005). News narratives about Nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Science Communication, 27, 175-199.
43.
Stokes, D. ( 1963). Spatial models and party competition. American Political Science Review, 57, 368-377.
44.
Stokes, D. ( 1992). Valence politics. In D. Kavanagh (Ed.), Electoral politics (pp. 141-162). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
45.
Waldron, A.M., Spencer, D., & Batt, C.A. ( 2006). The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology . Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 569-575.
46.
Whine, R. ( 2000). The use of the Internet by far right extremists . In B. D. Loader & D. Thomas (Eds.), Cybercrime: Law, security and privacy in the information age. London: Routledge.
47.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. ( 2004). See through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos .
