Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:24:09.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEUS EX MACHINA OR E-SLAVE? PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF HEALTHCARE ROBOTICS IN THE GERMAN PRINT MEDIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2012

Katsiaryna Laryionava  and
Dominik Gross
Katsiaryna Laryionava
Affiliation:
RWTH Aachen University email: [email protected]
Dominik Gross
Affiliation:
RWTH Aachen University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The news media plays a central role in providing information regarding new medical technologies and exerts an influence on their social perception, understanding, and assessments. This study, therefore, analyzes how healthcare robotics are portrayed in the German print news media. It examines whether the risks and opportunities of new medical technologies are presented in a balanced manner and investigates whether or not print media coverage of these technologies is affected by science-fiction discourse, in which robots appear mostly as a threat to humans.

Methods: Ten years of German print media coverage (2000–2010) have been studied by means of systematic, standardized content analysis.

Results: Reporting focuses predominantly on beneficial advancements in medical practice and the advantages of robotics for patients, medical staff, and society. The results show that the dominant relationship between robots and humans that is transmitted in print media in medical contexts is positive, with robots mostly portrayed as assistants, colleagues, or even friends. Only a small number of articles report ethical questions and risks.

Conclusions: In contrast to science-fiction discourse, the German print media provides a positive picture of robotics to the lay public.

Keywords

Healthcare roboticsNew medical technologyGerman print media
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 265 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Anderson, A, Allan, S, Petersen, A, et al.The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun. 2005;27:200–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Anonymous. Realitätsferne Spielerei [Unrealistic play]. Der Spiegel. 2001. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-20184311.html.Google Scholar
3.Anonymous. Wunderwerke der Medizin. [Wonder pieces of medicine]. Focus. 2010. http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ratgeber/zukunftsmedizin/visionen/tid-20550/medizin-seite-2-wunderwerke-der-medizin_aid_575415.html.Google Scholar
4.Beck, S. Grundlegende Fragen zum rechtlichen Umgang mit der Robotik [Basic questions to the juridical handling of robotics]. Jurist Rundsch. 2009;6:225–230.Google Scholar
5.Brooks, RA. Das Fleisch und die Maschine. Wie die neuen Technologien den Menschen verändern werden [Flesh and the machine: How the new technologies will change the person]. Frankf Allg Ztg. 2000;205:49.Google Scholar
6.Butter, M, Rensma, A, Boxsel, Jv, Kalisingh, S, et al.Robotics for healthcare. European Commission: Information Society and Media. 2008.Google Scholar
7.Coulter, A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: Response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:92–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Einsiedel, EF. Framing science and technology in the Canadian press. Public Underst Sci. 1992;1:89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Garrido, MV, Kristensen, FB, Nielsen, CP, Busse, R. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: Current status, challenges and potential. World Health Organization. 2008. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/90426/E91922.pdf.Google Scholar
10.Glasser, CJ.International libel and privacy handbook. A global reference for journalists, publishers, webmasters, and lawyers. Bloomberg Professional; 2009.Google Scholar
11.Goodman, JR, Goodman, BP. Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids. Public Underst Sci. 2006;15:359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Ichbiah, D.Robots: From science fiction to technological revolution. New York: Harry N. Abrams; 2005.Google Scholar
13.Joy, B. Why the future doesn't need us: Our most powerful 21st-century technologies—robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech—are threatening to make humans an endangered species). Frankf Allg Ztg. 2000;130:49.Google Scholar
14.Köhn, R. Die neue Liaison von Mensch und Maschine [The new liaison of human being and machine]. Frankf Allg Ztg. 2008;129.Google Scholar
15.Listerman, T. Framing of science issues in opinion-leading news: International comparison of biotechnology issue coverage. Public Underst Sci. 2010;19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Mühlebach, R. Wissenschaftler testen Pflege-Roboter im Parkheim Berg Zivi Robbie serviert im Altenheim die Getränke [Scientists test nursing robot at the senior residence Berg. Zivi- Robbie serves drink in the old people's home]. Bild. 2010. http://www.bild.de/BILD/regional/stuttgart/aktuell/2010/07/23/pflege-roboter-im-parkheim-berg/zivi-robbie-serviertim-altenheim-die-getraenke.html.Google Scholar
17.Petersen, A, Anderson, A, Allan, S, Wilkinson, C. Opening the black box: Scientists’ views on the role of the news media in the nanotechnology debate. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Racine, E, Waldman, S, Palmour, N, et al.“Currents of Hope”: Neurostimulation techniques in U.S. and U.K. print media. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2007;16:312–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Scheufele, DA, Lewenstein, BV. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res. 2005;7:659–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Sparrow, R, Sparrow, L. In the hands of machines? The future of aged care. Minds Machines. 2006;16:141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Stephens, LF. News narratives about Nano S&T in major U.S. and Non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun. 2005;27:175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Tamburrini, G. Ethical reflections on healthcare robotics. In: Capurro, R, Nagenborg, M, eds. Ethics and robotics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2009:35–48.Google Scholar
23.TNS-Infratest-Studie. Studie zur Relevanz der Medien für die Meinungsbildung. Empirische Grundlagen zur Ermittlung der Wertigkeit der Mediengattungen bei der Meinungsbildung [Study on the relevance of the media for opinion education: Empirical bases for inquiring into the valency of media types on opinion construction]. Berlin: Bavarian Land Headquarters for New Media (BLM); 2010.Google Scholar
24.Wagner, JJ, Cannon, DM, Van der Loos, HFM. Cross-cultural considerations in establishing roboethics for neuro-robot applications. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). Chicago, IL; 2005.Google Scholar
25.Zimmer, R, Hertel, R, Böl, GF, eds. Risikowahrnehmung beim Thema Nanotechnologie–Analyse der Medienberichterstattung [Risk Perception of Nanotechnology–Analysis of Media Coverage]. Berlin: BfR-Wissenschaft; 2008.Google Scholar