@article{vizanko_kadinski_cummings_ostfeld_berglund_2024, title={Modeling prevention behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic using Bayesian belief networks and protection motivation theory}, volume={3}, ISSN={["1539-6924"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14287}, DOI={10.1111/risa.14287}, abstractNote={Abstract}, journal={RISK ANALYSIS}, author={Vizanko, Brent and Kadinski, Leonid and Cummings, Christopher and Ostfeld, Avi and Berglund, Emily Zechman}, year={2024}, month={Mar} }
 @article{trump_jin_galaitsi_cummings_jarman_greer_sharma_linkov_2023, title={Equitable Response in Crisis: Methodology and Application for COVID-19}, volume={9}, ISSN={["2332-9025"]}, DOI={10.1115/1.4062683}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={3}, journal={ASCE-ASME JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY IN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS PART B-MECHANICAL ENGINEERING}, author={Trump, Benjamin D. and Jin, Andrew and Galaitsi, Stephanie and Cummings, Christopher and Jarman, Holly and Greer, Scott and Sharma, Vidur and Linkov, Igor}, year={2023}, month={Sep} }
 @article{rosenthal_irvine_cummings_ho_2023, title={Exposure to climate change information predicts public support for solar geoengineering in Singapore and the United States}, volume={13}, ISSN={["2045-2322"]}, DOI={10.1038/s41598-023-46952-w}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={1}, journal={SCIENTIFIC REPORTS}, author={Rosenthal, Sonny and Irvine, Peter J. and Cummings, Christopher L. and Ho, Shirley S.}, year={2023}, month={Nov} }
 @article{lindberg_peters_cummings_2023, title={Gene-Edited Food Adoption Intentions and Institutional Trust in the United States: Benefits, Acceptance, and Labeling(star)}, ISSN={["1549-0831"]}, DOI={10.1111/ruso.12480}, abstractNote={Abstract}, journal={RURAL SOCIOLOGY}, author={Lindberg, Sonja A. and Peters, David J. and Cummings, Christopher L.}, year={2023}, month={Feb} }
 @article{trump_cummings_klasa_galaitsi_linkov_2023, title={Governing biotechnology to provide safety and security and address ethical, legal, and social implications}, volume={13}, ISSN={["1664-8021"]}, DOI={10.3389/fgene.2022.1052371}, abstractNote={The field of biotechnology has produced a wide variety of materials and products which are rapidly entering the commercial marketplace. While many developments promise revolutionary benefits, some of them pose uncertain or largely untested risks and may spur debate, consternation, and outrage from individuals and groups who may be affected by their development and use. In this paper we show that the success of any advanced genetic development and usage requires that the creators establish technical soundness, ensure safety and security, and transparently represent the product’s ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). We further identify how failures to address ELSI can manifest as significant roadblocks to product acceptance and adoption and advocate for use of the “safety-by-design” governance philosophy. This approach requires addressing risk and ELSI needs early and often in the technology development process to support innovation while providing security and safety for workers, the public, and the broader environment. This paper identifies and evaluates major ELSI challenges and perspectives to suggest a methodology for implementing safety-by-design in a manner consistent with local institutions and politics. We anticipate the need for safety-by-design approach to grow and permeate biotechnology governance structures as the field expands in scientific and technological complexity, increases in public attention and prominence, and further impacts human health and the environment.}, journal={FRONTIERS IN GENETICS}, author={Trump, Benjamin and Cummings, Christopher and Klasa, Kasia and Galaitsi, Stephanie and Linkov, Igor}, year={2023}, month={Jan} }
 @article{wei_grieger_cummings_loschin_kuzma_2023, title={Identifying sustainability assessment parameters for genetically engineered agrifoods}, volume={7}, ISSN={["2572-2611"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10411}, DOI={10.1002/ppp3.10411}, abstractNote={Societal Impact StatementA diverse portfolio of genetically engineered food crops, as well as animal livestock and fish, are currently being developed and commercialized. To ensure their contributions to long‐term sustainability, a broad range of environmental, health, ethical, and societal parameters should be used in their evaluations. This paper proposes a set of parameters to evaluate the sustainability of genetically engineered food and agriculture products and discusses mechanisms to improve their governance and oversight. With such holistic evaluations, genetic engineering applications that are deemed beneficial to sustainable agriculture could be identified in an effort to foster sustainability.}, journal={PLANTS PEOPLE PLANET}, author={Wei, Wei and Grieger, Khara and Cummings, Christopher L. and Loschin, Nick and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2023}, month={Jul} }
 @article{chu_shastry_barbieri_prodromou_greback-clarke_smith_moore_kilgore_cummings_pancorbo_et al._2023, title={Peptide ligands for the affinity purification of adeno-associated viruses from HEK 293 cell lysates}, volume={7}, ISSN={["1097-0290"]}, DOI={10.1002/bit.28495}, abstractNote={Abstract}, journal={BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING}, author={Chu, Wenning and Shastry, Shriarjun and Barbieri, Eduardo and Prodromou, Raphael and Greback-Clarke, Paul and Smith, Will and Moore, Brandyn and Kilgore, Ryan and Cummings, Christopher and Pancorbo, Jennifer and et al.}, year={2023}, month={Jul} }
 @article{shastry_chu_barbieri_greback-clarke_smith_cummings_minzoni_pancorbo_gilleskie_ritola_et al._2023, title={Rational design and experimental evaluation of peptide ligands for the purification of adeno-associated viruses via affinity chromatography}, volume={9}, ISSN={["1860-7314"]}, DOI={10.1002/biot.202300230}, abstractNote={Abstract}, journal={BIOTECHNOLOGY JOURNAL}, author={Shastry, Shriarjun and Chu, Wenning and Barbieri, Eduardo and Greback-Clarke, Paul and Smith, William K. and Cummings, Christopher and Minzoni, Arianna and Pancorbo, Jennifer and Gilleskie, Gary and Ritola, Kimberly and et al.}, year={2023}, month={Sep} }
 @article{trump_cummings_loschin_keisler_wells_linkov_2023, title={The worsening divergence of biotechnology: the importance of risk culture}, volume={11}, ISSN={["2296-4185"]}, DOI={10.3389/fbioe.2023.1250298}, abstractNote={In the last 20 years, the field of biotechnology has made significant progress and attracted substantial investments, leading to different paths of technological modernization among nations. As a result, there is now an international divide in the commercial and intellectual capabilities of biotechnology, and the implications of this divergence are not well understood. This raises important questions about why global actors are motivated to participate in biotechnology modernization, the challenges they face in achieving their goals, and the possible future direction of global biotechnology development. Using the framework of prospect theory, this paper explores the role of risk culture as a fundamental factor contributing to this divergence. It aims to assess the risks and benefits associated with the early adoption of biotechnology and the regulatory frameworks that shape the development and acceptance of biotechnological innovations. By doing so, it provides valuable insights into the future of biotechnology development and its potential impact on the global landscape.}, journal={FRONTIERS IN BIOENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY}, author={Trump, Benjamin D. and Cummings, Christopher L. and Loschin, Nicholas and Keisler, Jeffrey M. and Wells, Emily M. and Linkov, Igor}, year={2023}, month={Aug} }
 @article{cummings_peters_2022, title={Gene-Edited Foods and the Public: The First Representative Survey Study of the United States}, ISSN={["1752-4040"]}, DOI={10.1080/17524032.2022.2086894}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Recent gene editing tools and techniques continue to develop at a swift pace and gene-edited foods boast significant promise to create identifiable benefits for end-use consumers, although there are currently few publicly identifiable products in the commercial marketplace. While competing stakeholders are active in this space, few public-facing media stories have surfaced and there have been few studies of public opinion of gene-edited foods. This article reports findings of the first representative survey study of public opinion toward gene-edited foods in the United States. This work finds that Americans are divided on their perceptions of this new technology and provides robust and granular assessment and identification of socioeconomic and belief-based classifications to better describe the current state of public opinion in this area.}, journal={ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION-A JOURNAL OF NATURE AND CULTURE}, author={Cummings, Christopher L. and Peters, David}, year={2022}, month={Jun} }
 @article{dahlstrom_wang_lindberg_opfer_cummings_2022, title={The Media's Taste for Gene-Edited Food: Comparing Media Portrayals within US and European Regulatory Environments}, ISSN={["1552-8251"]}, DOI={10.1177/01622439221108537}, abstractNote={ Recent gene-editing technologies are heralded by proponents as a revolution for developing gene-edited foods (GEFs) while critics demand increased governance and scrutiny of potential societal impacts. Governance of GEFs is different in the United States, where GEFs are entering the market, and Europe, which restricts GEF development. Definitive regulations for governing GEFs are not yet solidified in either region. We identify and compare how English-language media in the United States and Europe portray potential risks, benefits, and regulation of GEFs, and we explore how these portrayals may reflect their regulatory environments. Results show that the regions similarly prioritize benefit frames that emphasize the social and scientific progress GEFs may bring, and few articles express skepticism about potential benefits. Comparing samples across regions exposes differences between Europe and the United States in the risk and benefit portrayals and in governance initiatives. Both regions prioritize policy risks that are counter to their current oversight regimes: the US media sample focused on GEFs being underregulated while the European sample emphasize risks of too much regulation. This may demonstrate the power of media to reflect and even cultivate public opinion and may influence future policy revisions within these distinct regulatory environments. }, journal={SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES}, author={Dahlstrom, Michael F. and Wang, Zhe and Lindberg, Sonja and Opfer, Kasey and Cummings, Christopher L.}, year={2022}, month={Jun} }
 @article{cummings_kuzma_kokotovich_glas_grieger_2021, title={Barriers to responsible innovation of nanotechnology applications in food and agriculture: A study of US experts and developers}, volume={23}, ISSN={["2452-0748"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.impact.2021.100326}, abstractNote={The use of nanotechnology and engineered nanomaterials in food and agriculture (nano-agrifood) sectors is intended to provide several potential benefits to consumers and society, such as the provision of more nutritious processed foods, edible food coatings to extend shelf lives of fresh cut produce, and more sustainable alternatives to traditional agrochemicals. The responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods may be particularly important to pursue given previous case studies involving other agrifood technologies that experienced significant public consternation. Here, we define responsible innovation following Stilgoej et al. (2013) that establishes processes to iteratively review and reflect upon one's innovation, engage stakeholders in dialogue, and to be open and transparent throughout innovation stages - processes that go beyond primary focuses of understanding environmental, health, and safety impacts of nano-enabled products and implementing safe-by-design principles. Despite calls for responsible nano-innovation across diverse sectors, it has not yet been clear what types of barriers are faced by nano-agrifood researchers and innovators in particular. This study therefore identifies and builds the first typology of barriers to responsible innovation as perceived by researchers and product developers working in nano-agrifood sectors in the United States. Our findings report 5 key barriers to responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods: Lack of Data (reported by 70% of all interview participants, and represented 34.6% of all barrier-related excerpts), Lack of Product Oversight (reported by 60% of participants, and represented 28.7% of excerpts), Need for Ensuring Marketability & Use (reported by 70% of participants, and represented 21.3% of all barrier-related excerpts), Need for Increased Collaboration (reported by 40% of participants, and represented 10.3% of excerpts), and finally Lack of Adequate Training & Workforce (reported by 30% of participants, and represented by 5.1% of excerpts). We also relate these key barriers across three main nano-innovation phases, including 1) Scientific and Technical R&D, 2) Product Oversight, and 3) Post-commercialization Marketability & Use, and discuss how these barriers may impact stakeholders as well as present opportunities to align with principles of responsible innovation. Overall, these findings may help illuminate challenges that researchers and innovators face in the pursuit of responsible innovation relevant for the field of nanotechnology with relevancy for other emerging food and agricultural technologies more broadly.}, journal={NANOIMPACT}, author={Cummings, Christopher L. and Kuzma, Jennifer and Kokotovich, Adam and Glas, David and Grieger, Khara}, year={2021}, month={Jul} }
 @article{cegan_trump_cibulsky_collier_cummings_greer_jarman_klasa_kleinman_surette_et al._2021, title={Can Comorbidity Data Explain Cross-State and Cross-National Difference in COVID-19 Death Rates?}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1179-1594"]}, DOI={10.2147/RMHP.S313312}, abstractNote={Abstract Many efforts to predict the impact of COVID-19 on hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and mortality rely on age and comorbidities. These predictions are foundational to learning, policymaking, and planning for the pandemic, and therefore understanding the relationship between age, comorbidities, and health outcomes is critical to assessing and managing public health risks. From a US government database of 1.4 million patient records collected in May 2020, we extracted the relationships between age and number of comorbidities at the individual level to predict the likelihood of hospitalization, admission to intensive care, and death. We then applied the relationships to each US state and a selection of different countries in order to see whether they predicted observed outcome rates. We found that age and comorbidity data within these geographical regions do not explain much of the international or within-country variation in hospitalization, ICU admission, or death. Identifying alternative explanations for the limited predictive power of comorbidities and age at the population level should be considered for future research.}, journal={RISK MANAGEMENT AND HEALTHCARE POLICY}, author={Cegan, Jeffrey C. and Trump, Benjamin D. and Cibulsky, Susan M. and Collier, Zachary A. and Cummings, Christopher L. and Greer, Scott L. and Jarman, Holly and Klasa, Kasia and Kleinman, Gary and Surette, Melissa A. and et al.}, year={2021}, pages={2877–2885} }
 @article{grieger_merck_cuchiara_binder_kokotovich_cummings_kuzma_2021, title={Responsible innovation of nano-agrifoods: Insights and views from U.S. stakeholders}, volume={24}, ISSN={2452-0748}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365}, DOI={10.1016/j.impact.2021.100365}, abstractNote={To date, there has been little published work that has elicited diverse stakeholder views of nano-agrifoods and of how nano-agrifoods align with the goals of responsible innovation. This paper aims to fill this research gap by investigating views of nano-agrifoods, how well their development adheres to principles of responsible innovation, and potential challenges for achieving responsible nano-agrifood innovation. Using an online engagement platform, we find that U.S. stakeholder views of responsible innovation were dominated by environmental, health, and safety (EHS) contexts, considerations of societal impacts, opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and responding to societal needs. These views overlap with scholarly definitions of responsible innovation, albeit stakeholders were more focused on impacts of products, while the field of responsible innovation strives for more "upstream" considerations of the process of innovation. We also find that views of nano-agrifoods differed across applications with dietary supplements and improved whitening of infant formula viewed least favorably, and environmental health or food safety applications viewed most favorably. These findings align with the larger body of literature, whereby stakeholders are expected to be more supportive of nanotechnology used in agricultural applications compared to directly within food and food supplements. Overall, participants indicated they held relatively neutral views on research and innovation for nano-agrifoods being conducted responsibly, and they identified key challenges to ensuring their responsible innovation that were related to uncertainties in EHS studies, the need for public understanding and acceptance, and adequate regulation. In light of these results, we recommend future research efforts on EHS impacts and risk-benefit frameworks for nano-agrifoods, better understanding stakeholder views on what constitutes effective regulation, and addressing challenges with effective regulation and responsible innovation practices.}, journal={NanoImpact}, publisher={Elsevier BV}, author={Grieger, Khara D. and Merck, Ashton W. and Cuchiara, Maude and Binder, Andrew R. and Kokotovich, Adam and Cummings, Christopher L. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2021}, month={Oct}, pages={100365} }
 @article{cummings_rosenthal_kong_2021, title={Secondary Risk Theory: Validation of a Novel Model of Protection Motivation}, volume={41}, ISSN={["1539-6924"]}, DOI={10.1111/risa.13573}, abstractNote={Abstract}, number={1}, journal={RISK ANALYSIS}, author={Cummings, Christopher L. and Rosenthal, Sonny and Kong, Wei Yi}, year={2021}, month={Jan}, pages={204–220} }
 @article{cummings_kong_orminski_2020, title={A typology of beliefs and misperceptions about the influenza disease and vaccine among older adults in Singapore}, volume={15}, ISSN={["1932-6203"]}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0232472}, abstractNote={Access to the influenza vaccine pose little barriers in developed countries such as Singapore and vaccination against influenza is highly recommended for at-risk populations including older adults. However, vaccination rates are much lower than recommended despite the significant morbidity and mortality associated with the disease among this vulnerable population. Given timely goals to increase vaccine acceptance and uptake, we explored Singaporean older adults’ misperceptions about influenza disease and vaccine. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted among 76 Singaporean adults aged 65 and above with no focus on a specific area in Singapore. Data were analyzed with grounded theory methods to understand participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge. We developed in vivo codes that reflect the verbiage used by participants and exhaustively catalogued themes through a constant comparison coding method. Focusing specifically on older adults’ misperceptions, seven main themes about influenza disease or vaccine emerged from our data analysis: familiarity with influenza, misperceptions about influenza, personal susceptibility to influenza, familiarity with the influenza vaccine, misperceptions about the influenza vaccine, misperceptions about influenza vaccine usage, and opinions about and barriers to influenza vaccine uptake. Notably, there is a lack of adequate knowledge and motivation in vaccinating against influenza among older adults in Singapore. Health communication needs to be more tailored toward older adults’ message processing systems and engage health professionals’ involvement in addressing the influenza disease and vaccine misperceptions identified in this study.}, number={5}, journal={PLOS ONE}, author={Cummings, Christopher L. and Kong, Wei Yi and Orminski, Jeanette}, year={2020}, month={May} }
 @book{trump_cummings_kuzma_linkov_2020, place={Cham, Switzerland}, series={Risk, Systems and Decisions}, title={Synthetic Biology 2020: Frontiers in Risk Analysis and Governance}, ISBN={9783030272630 9783030272647}, ISSN={2626-6717 2626-6725}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7}, journal={Risk, Systems and Decisions}, publisher={Springer International Publishing}, year={2020}, collection={Risk, Systems and Decisions} }
 @article{ndoh_cummings_kuzma_2020, title={The Role of Expert Disciplinary Cultures in Assessing Risks and Benefits of Synthetic Biology}, ISBN={["978-3-030-27263-0"]}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_15}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-030-27264-7_15}, abstractNote={Like other technological fields before it, synthetic biology (SB) has been ascribed different definitions by different scholars (Pauwels 2013; Smith 2013; Wang et al. 2013). One commonly used definition of SB is the extraction of living parts for organisms that are then inserted into other organisms to create a “new” organism with parts from the donor and recipient (Benner and Sismour 2005). Synthetic biology has also been described as “the use of computer assisted, biological engineering to design and construct new synthetic biological part” (Hoffman and Newman 2012). Others like the National Science Foundation and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council have noted that synthetic biology is the identification and application of biology in the design of biological parts and systems for use in the creation or redesign of natural biological systems for useful purposes (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council 2009).}, journal={SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY 2020: FRONTIERS IN RISK ANALYSIS AND GOVERNANCE}, author={Ndoh, Christina and Cummings, Christopher L. and Kuzma, Jennifer}, year={2020}, pages={351–370} }
 @article{cummings_berube_lavelle_2013, title={Influences of individual-level characteristics on risk perceptions to various categories of environmental health and safety risks}, volume={16}, ISSN={["1466-4461"]}, DOI={10.1080/13669877.2013.788544}, abstractNote={Over the last five decades, social science researchers have examined how the public perceives the risks associated with a variety of environmental health and safety (EHS) hazards. The body of literature that has been emerged diverse both in the methodology employed to collect and analyze data and in the subject of study. The findings have confirmed that risk perceptions vary between groups of individuals as well as between categories of EHS risks. However, the extant literature on EHS risk perceptions has failed to provide empirical insights into how risk perceptions can be best explained according to the interplay of both (1) the category of EHS hazard appraised and (2) the prominent individual-level characteristics that best explain observed risk perception differences. This study addresses this deficiency in the literature by providing insights into the individual and cumulative roles that various individual-level variables play in characterizing risk perceptions to various categories of EHS risks including ‘agentic risks’ like street drug use and cigarette smoking, ‘emerging technological risks’ like nanoparticles and cloning, and ‘manufacturing risks’ like air and chemical pollution. Our data are drawn from the 2009 Citizens, Science, and Emerging Technologies national study of United States households that investigated public perceptions of EHS risks, traditional and emerging media use, and various individual characteristics like personal demographics, socioeconomic factors, and perceptual filters. The findings show that some categories of EHS risks like those associated with emerging technologies may be more easily predicted than other categories of risks and that individual-level characteristics vary in their explanative power between risk categories even among a single sample of respondents.}, number={10}, journal={JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH}, author={Cummings, Christopher L. and Berube, David M. and Lavelle, Mary E.}, year={2013}, month={Nov}, pages={1277–1295} }
 @article{berube_cummings_cacciatore_scheufele_kalin_2011, title={Characteristics and classification of nanoparticles: Expert Delphi survey}, volume={5}, ISSN={["1743-5404"]}, DOI={10.3109/17435390.2010.521633}, abstractNote={Abstract Research needs assessment regarding environmental health and safety (EHS) of nanoparticles is problematic. Generating benchmark data to assess research and policy initiatives seems daunting. This study's findings present more granular and qualitative assessments of expert preferences and concerns. This three-round Delphi study elicits expert estimations of problematic nanoparticle characteristics and classifications from a sample of nanoscience experts in chemistry, EHS policy, engineering, environmental toxicology, and human toxicology (n = 18). The Delphi method is a forecasting tool designed for expert evaluation of events under high degrees of uncertainty. Results demonstrate high concordance indicating favorable consensus among the sample concerning characteristics and classifications of nanoparticles that are potentially or actually problematic to EHS. These findings establish a benchmark for future investigations of expert preferences and concerns.}, number={2}, journal={NANOTOXICOLOGY}, author={Berube, David and Cummings, Christopher and Cacciatore, Michael and Scheufele, Dietram and Kalin, Jason}, year={2011}, month={Jun}, pages={236–243} }
 @article{morain_frith_cummings_berube_2011, title={Review Essay: Understanding Digital Media and Society}, volume={61}, ISSN={["0021-9916"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01560.x}, abstractNote={Bookstore shelves are filled with works about the digital media revolution, the authors of which claim to have an inside and nuanced understanding of one or more digital media artifacts, such as Facebook or Twitter. The recent proliferation of literature on emerging technologies and changing social behavior makes it difficult to find well-researched and engaging arguments that are relevant to digital media scholars. Fortunately, Polity's Digital Media and Society Series has consistently published one of the strongest collections devoted to digital media studies. The Digital Media and Society Series includes 12 books on diverse topics ranging from the challenges facing the music industry to the explosion of mobile communication. We have chosen to focus on 3 of the 12 books in this review to provide a snapshot of the research you can expect from Polity; each book in the series deserves its own thorough review and we recommend all 12 books in the series for their own respective audiences and purposes. The three we chose capture the breadth and variety of the series as a whole, including a detailed discussion of late capitalist society (The Information Society), an excellent examination of the organizing technology of the Information Age (Search Engine Society), and an analysis of a specific digital media community (YouTube).}, number={3}, journal={JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION}, author={Morain, Matthew and Frith, Jordan and Cummings, Christopher and Berube, David M.}, year={2011}, month={Jun}, pages={E12–E14} }
 @article{frith_morain_cummings_berube_2011, title={The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains}, volume={61}, ISSN={["0021-9916"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01535.x}, abstractNote={McLuhan (2003) argued that we cannot fully understand a medium until we have moved on to a new dominant medium. McLuhan may have been partially correct, but it seems overly defeatist to relegate medium studies to the field of history, and despite its contemporaneity, many scholars have actively criticized our current dominant medium: the Internet. Although some academics have certainly taken a utopian stance to the Internet—most notably early theorists such as Negroponte (1996) and Lèvy (1997)—others have criticized the growth of the Internet from diverse disciplinary perspectives. The popular press, however, has seen much more of the Wired-inspired techno-utopian writing than any kind of cogent criticism on how life is being reshaped by a near complete reliance on the Internet. It is within this context that Nicholas Carr and Jaron Lanier set out to establish a necessary corrective to the techno-utopian strands that run through the popular literature on the Internet. The two authors come from different backgrounds—Carr is a New York Times best-selling journalist and Lanier is a founding father of virtual reality and an influential tech guru—and use different support for their arguments, but both books can be read together as a criticism of the blind and indiscriminate embrace of the Internet by the public at large. They remind the reader that technological adoption has consequences, and we all need to consider whether the consequences are worth it. For that, they should be commended. However, both books also suffer from major weaknesses that mar their intended effectiveness. We will start with a brief description of Carr's The Shallows and then move on to Lanier's You Are Not a Gadget.}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION}, author={Frith, Jordan and Morain, Matt and Cummings, Chris and Berube, David}, year={2011}, month={Feb}, pages={E9–E12} }