The gases that make up the earth's atmosphere are essential for life. As certain of them increase, they contribute to raising the mean temperature of the earth. These changes are called "the greenhouse effect." Current debate centers on whether the amount of warming is increasing, and what role humans play in the process. This research focuses on the interaction between the scientific community engaged in research on the greenhouse effect and mediated reports of those events in newspapers, news magazines and network television. Specifically, the research will attempt to delineate the major areas of scientific findings on greenhouse research through an analysis of published scientific literature. This analysis will focus on scholarly journals and examine both the content of specific scientific findings and the scholarly citations used by researchers. A content analysis of mass media coverage of the issue will then attempt to trace when and how significant scientific findings do or do not appear in the mass media. The mass media content analysis also will attempt to delineate how those scientific findings are portrayed in news accounts--in short, to descirbe and analyze how scientific findings are popularized through media accounts. It is anticipated that this process of "mediating" greenhouse research will be governed by norms and values of journalistic and scientific behavior, norms and values reflective not only of both professions but also of other groups in the society who have a variety of interests in the greenhouse debate. The hypothesis for this study is that certain journalistic norms and values will influence the coverage of the greenhouse effect regardless of the particular source of the information and in some ways largely independent of specific events. The goal is to articulate what those values are and to show how they influence and are influenced by the values and norms of other groups, resulting in a mediated public agenda on important issues involving science and public policy. This research has an important and timely focus; its results will be useful and accessible to a wide audience. The qualifications and track record of the investigator are excellent; institutional support is good; the research plan is sensible. Support is highly recommended.
