Nano S&T in the Global South: Assessing risk discourses

1. Nano S&T in the Global South: Assessing risk discourses MinnaKanerva UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University Tentative governance in emerging science and technology Enschede, October 29, 2010

2. Background (I) • Some prior studies in the North (US, Canada, UK, Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Spain) • Weaver et al. (2009) Fitzgerald (2005), Laing (2005), Stephens (2005), Anderson et al. (2005), Te Kulve (2006), Zimmer et al. (2008), Kjolberg (2009), Schmidt Kjaergaard (2008), Veltri & Crescentini (2010) • Brief results • Nano S&T benefits outweigh risks in the newspaper stories • Risk topics are generally dealt with in only a minority of the articles (UK maybe an exception) • The focus has been on risks vs. benefits MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

3. Background (II) • Why Global South chosen here? • Potentially even greater benefits than in the Global North • More potential risks • Media discourse mostly not yet explored (one exception is Brazil in Invernizzi, 2009), unlike in the North, so interesting to see what’s there MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

4. Methodology - Overview • Total of 96 online newspaper stories about nanoS&T, between 2000 and early 2009, analysed from (one newspaper per country): • India (The Hindu) • South Africa (The Star) • Kenya (The Daily Nation) • Hong Kong (South China Morning Post) • Methods • Discourse analysis, with the help of software (Atlas.ti) • Focus is not so much on the risk-benefit axis, but instead on: • Risk actions, using a typology • Complexity • Constructions of nanoS&T • Comparison between North and South - between other studies and this study MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

5. Methodology - Risk action typology MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

6. Some examples… MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

7. Methodology – Complexity (I) MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

8. Methodology – Complexity (II) • Complexityofdiscourse, not complexityofrisk, but • Certainriskactionsmaybeencouragedby different levelsofcomplexity, e.g. • Simple discourse, nano S&T isgreat -> ignorerisk (passive) • Simple discourse, nano S&T isdangerous -> avoidrisk • Complexdiscourse, nano S&T isambiguous • -> assessrisk -> potential publicinvolvement in TA • -> ignorerisk (active) • Inspiredby Dijk (2008) whoquantifiedcomplexitybycountingattributesusedtodescribe a technology MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

9. Results - Stories • Different stories of what nano S&T means in different country (or newspaper) contexts • South Africa – helping the poor, the ill, and the environment, practical vision, social implications • India – new technology for everyone, but also helping the poor, most importantly, a means to make India a developed country, grand vision, social and economic implications • Hong Kong – new technology for everyone, transforming the economy, economic implications • Kenya – discussion in the media only starting, no clear nano story yet MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

10. Results – Specificthemes (I) • South Africa (Star) • ‘Visionary period’ (-> 2006) vs. ‘risk period’ (2007 ->) • Detailed descriptions of related science (what’s special about nano?) and of how certain applications work • Importance of gold to South Africa, also in terms of nano S&T Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT

11. Results – Specificthemes (II) • India (Hindu) • Importance of education • Spokespersons for nano S&T (former President Abdul Kalam and nanoscientist C.N.R. Rao), similar to the UK • Comparisons between nano S&T and other technologies • Discourse on the social construction of technology as it relates to nano S&T (but limited) • Nano S&T sometimes presented as an old technology or as something natural, i.e. something where scientists are trying to mimic nature Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT

12. Results – Specificthemes (III) • Hong Kong (SCMP) • Attractiontocleanliness, importanceof electronic gadgets • Political environment (Hong Kong vs. mainland China) • Hong Kong scientistsseenaspioneers in nano S&T • Nano S&T describedas non-risky, exceptformolecularmanufacturing, andalternatelyassomethingextraordinary (generallevel), orassomethinguseful (specificapplications) Minna Kanerva, UNU-MERIT

13. Results – Risk actions (I) • Most stories ignoring risks • Still, a range of a dozen different risk actions can be found • South Africa might be talking more about nano risks than the other countries: e.g. passive ignoring of nano risks apparent in only 19% of SA articles, compared with 50% of Indian articles • Including risk governance actions (see typology) in the stories varies from country to country, or newspaper to newspaper MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

14. Results – Risk actions (II) MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

15. Results – Complexity (I) • Forthestudies in the North, complexityis not analysedas such, but, forexample: • Risk/benefitdiscussions, whichaddtocomplexity, rangefrom 1 to 21% ofarticlesbetween countries and time periods • Forthenewspapersstudied in the South: • Forthe Indian newspaper, discourseisbyfarthe least complex • For Hong Kong and South Africa, discourseismoreorlessequal in complexity, but not reallycomplex • Overall, complexityincreasesover time, exceptfor South Africa MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

16. Results – Complexity (II) MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

17. Results - Conclusions • North and South not that different overall, in that risks outweigh benefits in nearly all articles, but each country/newspaper would seem to have its own ‘nano story’ • Research could be done at country level, and globally, to get a more interesting picture • Risk action and complexity analyses worked fairly well – could apply to discourses on other risk issues as well (e.g. climate change) MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

18. References • Anderson, A., Allan, S., Petersen, A. and Wilkinson, C. (2005). The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Science Communication, 27(2), 200-220 • Dijk, M. (2008). Shifting frames on the car market: ICE-regime versus the EV & HEV niche (1990-2005). ICIS • Fitzgerald, S. (2005). Constructing risk: Media coverage of nanotechnology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 11 • Invernizzi, N. (2009). Visions on nanotechnology in Brazilian media. Presentation at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Washington, DC, October 28-31 • Kjolberg, K.L. (2009). Representations of nanotechnology in Norwegian newspapers – Implications for public participation. Nanoethics, 3, 61-72 • Laing, A. (2005). A report on Canadian and American news media coverage of nanotechnology issues. Cormex Research • Schmidt Kjaergaard, R. (2008). Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006. Public Understanding of Science (published online 17 November) • Stephens, L.F. (2005). News narratives about nano S&T in major US and non-US newspapers. Science Communication, 27(2), 175-199 • teKulve, H. (2006). Evolving repertoires: Nanotechnology in daily newspapers in the Netherlands. Science as Culture, 15(4), 367-382 • Veltri, G.A. and Crescentini, A. (2010). ¡Viva la NanoRevolucion!: Nanotechnology in the Spanish National Press. Presentation at the EASST 2010 conference in Trento, Italy, September 1-4 • Weaver, D.A., Lively, E. and Bimber, B. (2009). Searching for a frame: News media tell the story of technological progress, risk, and regulation. Science Communication, 31(2), 139-166 • Zimmer, R., Hertel, R. andBol, G.-F. (2008). Risikowahrnehmung beim Thema Nanotechnologie – Analyse der Medienberichterstattung. BfR-Wissenschaft 07/2008. Berlin: Bundesinstitut fur Risikobewertung. MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT

19. Thank you for listening!Contact: m.kanerva@maastrichtuniversity.nl MinnaKanerva, UNU-MERIT