Comparative Analyses of ‘Public Discourse’ and ‘Discourses about the Public’ in Relation to Stem Cell Research

Fiona Coyle: CESAGen, Cardiff UniversityJenny Kitzinger: CESAGen and Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies,

Cardiff University

Context

Over the last few years there has been a rapid expansion of research seeking to document people’s views about stem cell research. With a recent shift of emphasis onto ‘upstream’ engagement with science, a diverse range of publics have also been invited to become stakeholders in the policy-making and innovation process. However, there are gaps between the range, complexity and ambivalence of responses that characterise everyday talk (public discourses), and how these are represented/used by the mass media, different lobbying groups and policy makers (discourses about the public).

Further Information

Contact: Dr Fiona CoyleTel: +44 (0)29 20870137Email: CoyleF@cardiff.ac.uk

Aims and Objectives

This 2-year project, funded by CBAR, commenced in September 2006. Its aim is to gain a critical and reflexive understanding both of ‘public discourses’ and ‘discourses about the public’ with regards to stem cells. The research involves:

Critically reviewing existing studies about public responses to stem cell innovation.

Examining how ‘the public’ are represented in the mass media in different countries and how this compares to the research findings examined above.

Exploring how ideas about ‘the public’ inform policy making processes, drawing upon the UK, USA, New Zealand and South Korea as specific case studies

Methods

The first stage of research began with a critical analysis of the literature. A systematic review was carried out on English-language work on public responses to stem cell research. This included surveys, focus group studies, interviews, consultation exercises and engagement initiatives such as citizen juries and online forums. These studies were catalogued and compared across variables such as: when they were conducted, where they were carried out, how they were funded, the type of questions they explored, and the type of findings that were generated.

No Reference Date conducted

Place of study

Type of Stem Cell

Type of Public

Key findings Methods Used

How located

34 People Science and Policy Ltd (2003) Public Consultation on the Stem Cell Bank. Report prepared for The Medical Research Council. London. 30pp. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-psp-stem-cell-bank.pdf#search=%22Public%20Consultation%20on%20the%20Stem%20Cell%20Bank%22 or www.peoplescienceandpolicy.com

Early summer 2002, Spring 2003, Summer 2003.

UK Embryonic, foetal, adult

General, potential embryo donors.

A higher level of awareness of stem cells (esp. umbilical cords, bone marrow transplants and cures for Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injuries) than the facilitators expected to find. NB Michael J Fox and Christopher Reeve references. General acceptance of SCR although some women were uneasy about embryo research, the men were less so. IVF treatment people had quite different views of embryos because they were able to “see” them at only two days of development. Esp. women view embryos as babies and their frozen embryos as potential siblings for their existing children. Creation of embryos for research generally rejected (IVF procedures or CNT). CNT viewed with great suspicion, seen as unnatural and recognised as cloning (fear).

3 stages of focus groups with potential embryo donors and wider ‘public’. Men and women in separate groups.

Medical Research Council Website

Following this, media coverage of publics and stem cells/cloning is being collected via Lexus Nexus. Data will be entered into Atlas-ti and discursively analysed. Finally, policy documents in the four countries will be collated and examined, in terms of their representations of ‘the public’, what they say and its incorporation into policy-formation. Key policy-makers and researchers into regulation and stem cells will also be interviewed.

Public Discourses on Stem Cells

Based on the first stage of the project we can make the following statements:According to most ‘public opinion’ research, internationally, a significant majority of people knew very little about stem cell research other than embryonic.Based on available information, there was general support for all forms of stem cell research, with a preference for adult/cord blood, over foetal and lastly, embryonic. Religion was frequently mobilized in the USA as an important category in determining public opinions. However, qualitative studies in New Zealand, Australia and the UK suggest this plays a less significant role. In these countries, references to religion often emerged in relationship to wider concerns with safety, the instigation of ethical boundaries and concern over the use of woman’s bodies as egg-producing machines.

US opinion polls tended to collapse ‘publics’ into citizen-voters whose statistical profile slotted into one of two main categories: ‘party affiliates’ and/or ‘religious persons’. Moreover, survey data constructed a disembodied public, whose subjectivity was reduced to bar charts and statistical tables, and presence was determined by the conjunction of opinion polls with political referendums.

By contrast, recent UK-based research divided the monolithic ‘public’ into a series of sub-categories, in an attempt to see individuals as a collection of stakeholders or scientific citizens. Here, publics are viewed as one stakeholder among many in the stem cells debate at local, national and global scale levels. Although an apparently democratic approach, this also tends to disguise the inevitable and unequal power relations that are already in force before these stakeholders meet and debate.

Representations of ‘the Public’

Our analysis of methods and the ‘framing’ of research suggest that there are significant differences in how ‘publics’ are approached in research in different countries. For instance: