Human Embryo Research in the News: Scientific versus Ethical Frames?

William P. Cheshire's report (2004) suffers from many methodological shortcomings. One or more serious methodological flaws are identified in many of the peer commentaries (Baker 2004; Berg 2004; Green 2004; Grinnell 2004; Maienschein 2004; Zaner 2004). Indeed, it is difficult to concede even that Cheshire has identified the words and phrases most commonly used in news reports to refer to human embryos. At best, one can say that Cheshire has highlighted some features of news stories that would seem relevant in understanding news coverage of human embryo research. But this contribution is clouded by suspect methodological choices and undermined by a lack of theoretical sophistication regarding news-making processes, news content, and the role of news coverage in public understanding of science and medicine.

Still, the extent to which journalists highlight medical and scientific rather than ethical dimensions of human embryo research is a potentially important research question (although, again, Cheshire's report cannot be considered a rigorous investigation of this research question). Cheshire does not tell us precisely why we might expect that journalists would manifest bias or irresponsibility in their coverage of human embryo research. What are the most plausible explanations for the content features that Cheshire finds relevant?

News outlets tend to prefer reports of scientific discoveries and promising new medical treatments over reports of scientific processes, the complexities of science, and the social context of science. That is, science and health news tend to focus on what has been (or what could be) discovered, especially if these discoveries promise to save or prolong lives. In this respect one might hypothesize that the potential benefits of human embryo research are likely to be highlighted in news accounts.

New outlets tend to conceptualize human embryo research and ethics as distinct topics. The former is assigned to science and health reporters; the latter to religion and possibly political reporters. Good science and health reporters will not ignore the ethical considerations related to human embryo research, but these reporters might tend to highlight the more strictly scientific and medical aspects of human embryo research, preferring merely to mention rather than stress the fact that many thorny, unresolved ethical issues might be relevant in stories that focus on potential medical breakthroughs. More media space is devoted to science than to ethics, and media organizations, like perhaps too many institutions, tend to segregate ethics from specific domains of commerce or inquiry (preferring to think of, say, "ethical issues in science" as a special topic rather than to see ethics as an intrinsic, integral aspect of science). One might therefore hypothesize that news accounts will favor scientific over ethical frames in stories regarding human embryo research.

Many journalists prefer to avoid words and phrases that they fear are unduly emotional or closely tied to activist rhetoric. Even an adjective such as human in the phrase human embryo might be seen as potentially biased if the story has previously made it clear (e.g., in a headline or lead sentence) that human embryos are indeed the subject of discussion when "embryos" are subsequently mentioned.¹ Therefore, one might hypothesize that journalists tend to minimize words and phrases that evoke ethical considerations.

At the same time, news outlets tend to cover conflict and controversy rather than consensus. They tend to cover threats rather than the absence of threats. There is an audience for portrayals of science as an inherently dangerous and somehow antihuman pursuit, and there is no shortage of scientists, scholars, religious leaders, and political activists who will provide journalists with colorful quotations regarding the potential perils of human embryo research. Thus, one might hypothesize that journalists will foreground ethical considerations in their coverage of human embryo research.

Unfortunately, Cheshire's research does little to help us determine which, if any, of these hypotheses of sorts might be fruitfully investigated. Still, his article can be cautiously recommended to researchers who would hope...